Cooperation for Mutual Benefit:
Opportunities for Primary Industry and the
New Zealand Department of Conservation
Prepared by
Jill N. Ozarski
With funding from the sponsors of the
Ian Axford (New Zealand) Fellowships in Public Policy
August 2015
Established by the
New Zealand government in 1995
to facilitate public policy dialogue
between New Zealand and
the United States of America
Level 8, 120 Featherston Street
PO Box 3465
Wellington 6140
New Zealand
Telephone +64 4 472 2065
Facsimile +64 4 499 5364
E-mail
[email protected]
www.fulbright.org.nz
© Jill Ozarski 2015
Published by Fulbright New Zealand, August 2015
The opinions and views expressed in this paper are the personal views of the author and
do not represent in whole or part the opinions of Fulbright New Zealand or any New
Zealand government agency.
ISBN 978-0-473-33390-4 (print)
ISBN 978-0-473-33391-1 (PDF)
Ian Axford (New Zealand) Fellowships in Public Policy
Established by the New Zealand Government in 1995 to reinforce links between New
Zealand and the US, Ian Axford (New Zealand) Fellowships in Public Policy provide
the opportunity for outstanding mid-career professionals from the United States of
America to gain firsthand knowledge of public policy in New Zealand, including
economic, social and political reforms and management of the government sector.
The Ian Axford (New Zealand) Fellowships in Public Policy were named in honour of
Sir Ian Axford, an eminent New Zealand astrophysicist and space scientist who served
as patron of the fellowship programme until his death in March 2010.
Educated in New Zealand and England, Sir Ian held Professorships at Cornell
University and the University of California, and was Vice-Chancellor of Victoria
University of Wellington for three years. For many years, Sir Ian was director of the
Max Planck Institute for Aeronomy in Germany, where he was involved in the planning
of several space missions, including those of the Voyager planetary explorers, the
Giotto space probe and the Ulysses galaxy explorer.
Sir Ian was recognised as one of the great thinkers and communicators in the world of
space science, and was a highly respected and influential administrator. A recipient of
numerous science awards, he was knighted and named New Zealander of the Year in
1995.
Ian Axford (New Zealand) Fellowships in Public Policy have three goals:



To reinforce United States/New Zealand links by enabling fellows of high
intellectual ability and leadership potential to gain experience and build contacts
internationally.
To increase fellows’ ability to bring about changes and improvements in their
fields of expertise by the cross-fertilisation of ideas and experience.
To build a network of policy experts on both sides of the Pacific that will
facilitate international policy exchange and collaboration beyond the fellowship
experience.
Fellows are based at a host institution and carefully partnered with a leading specialist
who will act as a mentor. In addition, fellows spend a substantial part of their time in
contact with relevant organisations outside their host institutions, to gain practical
experience in their fields.
The fellowships are awarded to professionals active in the business, public or non-profit
sectors. A binational selection committee looks for fellows who show potential as
leaders and opinion formers in their chosen fields. Fellows are selected also for their
ability to put the experience and professional expertise gained from their fellowship
into effective use.
i
We acknowledge and thank the following sponsors that support the Ian Axford
(New Zealand) Fellowships in Public Policy programme:














Department of Internal Affairs
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
Ministry of Defence
Ministry of Education
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Ministry of Health
Ministry of Justice
Ministry for Primary Industries
Ministry of Social Development
New Zealand Customs Service
State Services Commission
The Treasury
Victoria University of Wellington School of Government
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Ian Axford fellowship has been the professional and personal opportunity of a
lifetime. I lived in one of the most desirable countries in the world, learned the many
similarities and differences between natural resource policy in the United States and
New Zealand, and met wonderful people.
There are many people to thank and I cannot list them all here. However, I must mention
the following:







Thank you to Sir Ian Axford and Fulbright New Zealand for providing this
rare opportunity for mid-career professional and their families, and especially
to Penelope, Magnolia, and Lesley.
Thank you to the public servants at the New Zealand Department of
Conservation (DOC). They hosted me and were incredibly generous with their
time and expertise so that I could learn about the magnificent natural resources
of this country. They were friendly faces at the office every day, trusted
advisors, supporters, and helped me connect with the people that led to the
stories in this report. Carol West and Avon Adams were excellent advisors,
and many other staff on the second floor become trusted colleagues and
friends. They even took care to celebrate some of my work back in the US,
such as when President Obama designated the Browns Canyon National
Monument in February 2015. My favourite New Zealand professional
experience was the opportunity to visit the Napier DOC office and Boundary
Stream Mainland Island to learn about their conservation projects, and
especially to see the young translocated petrels at Poutiri Ao ō Tāne.
Thank you to the 75 people who took the time from their busy schedules to
answer my questions and help me find key documents, and thus give this
report the details it needed to tell a story.
Thank you to Dr Taciano Milfont at Victoria University of Wellington, who
served as my academic advisor and provided helpful advice, resources, and
comments. Thanks also to Dr Deserai Anderson Crow and Dr Nicholas Flores
at the University of Colorado who provided helpful insights as I prepared in
the US.
Thank you to the other Fulbright awardees – Ian Axford fellows,
Distinguished Teachers, Scholars, Students, and alumni – who became our
“Fulbright family” and provided support, entertainment, learning, and shared
excitement.
Thank you to my US colleagues, especially US Senator Mark Udall and my
fellow staffers, who supported my application for this fellowship and made
work a fulfilling adventure every day back in the US.
Thank you to the friends and family who helped manage our personal life back
in the US so that we could enjoy the experience of living abroad.
And finally, thank you to my partner Travis Keeley. He accompanied me on this
adventure and there is no one better to share such a unique and life-changing
experience. Our wee daughter – Adelaide Violet Keeley – was born here on 22 June
2015. I have long believed that the most important thing in life is to create and cherish
love, family, friends, adventure, and laughter. The last seven months have provided an
abundance of all five.
iii
1 May 2015: After a day touring Poutiri Ao ō Tāne: Ruud Kleinpaste (“The Bugman”), Denise
Fastier (DOC), the author (8 months pregnant), and Melissa Brignall-Theyer (DOC). Photo
credit Ruud Kleinpaste
28 June 2015: Mom, Dad, and 6-day-old Adelaide in our Wellington apartment. Photo by
Christophe Gachiniard
Jill N. Ozarski
Wellington, July 2015
iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Imagine that you are part of the agency responsible for managing a third of the country
– including some of the rarest species on the planet, stunning scenery and recreational
resources that are sought out by national and international visitors, and the water
sources for much of the nation – for the benefit of present and future New Zealanders.
Now imagine that you are part of the production industry that uses a third of the country
to fuel the nation’s economy and produce food and fibre valued around the globe for its
connection to clean, green New Zealand.
Isn’t there a natural nexus for these two organisations – the New Zealand Department
of Conservation and primary industry – to partner up to conserve the nation’s natural
resources?
I wrote this report to tell the story of existing public-private sector partnerships and
perceptions between the New Zealand Department of Conservation (DOC) and primary
industry, including lessons learned, opportunities for the future, and comparison with a
relevant partnership example in the United States. I also interviewed representatives of
primary industry to reveal a set of common themes that indicate important operational
details for DOC and industry to consider.
This report includes case studies of the following public-private sector partnerships in
New Zealand:

Poutiri Ao ō Tāne – Returning native species to conservation land and
surrounding production landscapes, Hawke’s Bay region

Project Aorangi – Energising the community to eliminate pests and restore
native birds while maintaining recreational hunting opportunities on
conservation land and surrounding pastures, South Wairarapa coast

Nelson Forests and Mount Richmond Forest Park: Working together to
address wilding pines, South Marlborough region and the Richmond Range

Ruamahunga Cut-Off and the Wairarapa Moana Wetlands Restoration
Project: Restoring wetlands on private pasture in a 50-50 partnership with
farmers, Lake Wairarapa and Lake Onoke and surrounding wetlands,
Wairarapa plains

Living Water Programme: A partnership with Fonterra and DOC to improve
five sensitive water catchments in dairying regions across the country

Marlborough New Zealand Falcon Conservation Programme (formerly
Falcons for Grapes): An unsuccessful attempt to partner with the
winegrowing industry to restore rare falcons to vineyards, Marlborough
region
For context, and to compare organisational details and clear links to ecosystem services,
this report also includes one case study from the United States – “Forests to Faucets” –
which reviews the public-private partnership structure that is working to restore forest
and watershed health to protect urban water supplies in Colorado.
v
Conclusions and Recommendations
There is tremendous opportunity for DOC to continue and expand partnerships with
primary industry. The case studies and industry interviews show that there is interest
by industry and important conservation gains to be made from doing so.
I organise the findings and recommendations for operational details into the three
“phases” of a partnership for DOC:
A. Prospect Phase: Proactive ideas for who, how, and what message to use
when considering new potential primary industry partnerships.
 Targeting and looking for opportunities – be proactive and approach
potential partners with shared values
 Approaching a potential partner – consider using a “go-between” or
messenger and establishing a Business Leadership Council
 The Key Message – focus on conservation
 Analyse DOC capacity before making commitments
 Adopt an open and pragmatic approach
 Be cautious – protect your reputation
B. Start-Up Phase: Operational details to have in place up-front and before work
begins.
 Be clear on common goals and operating procedures and implement
strong project management techniques from the beginning
 The culture clash is inescapable, but both parties have a responsibility
to compromise
C. Implementation Phase: Critical components to have in place over the life of
the partnership.
 Measurement and associated research is critical
 You can’t say thank you enough
The report concludes with recommendations for New Zealand primary industry,
including more public-private partnerships and how to evaluate business risks and
opportunities related to ecosystem services.
A secondary goal of my research was to look at whether and how the quantified
concepts of natural capital and ecosystem services applied to decision-making by
business about public-private sector partnerships. Although I looked hard, it appears
that economic calculations and “bottom-line” numbers were not an important factor for
any of the case studies or industry interviews. Instead, partners were motivated by other
factors such as personal relationships, a shared appreciation and dedication to the land,
and being a good neighbour or corporate citizen.
If there is one take-away message that applies to this entire report, it is that relationships
matter. Partnerships are like any other human relationship, and are based on people,
personal interactions and mutual respect.
New Zealand has an opportunity to set a model for the world in how to build a
sustainable natural environment and economy, and it is my hope that these case studies
and insights can support even more public-private partnerships that are a win-win-win
for the agency, industry, and the general public.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................. iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... v
1
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 3
What is a public-private sector partnership and why are they growing in popularity? ................... 4
Why focus on primary industry? ..................................................................................................... 6
2
BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 7
New Zealand Land Use and Economy ............................................................................................ 7
Clean and Green ......................................................................................................................... 7
Primary Industry......................................................................................................................... 7
Department of Conservation ...................................................................................................... 9
Biodiversity and Pest Control................................................................................................... 10
Barriers and Motivations for Businesses to Adopt Sustainability Practices, and Applications to
New Zealand ................................................................................................................................. 12
3
METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 13
4
CASE STUDIES OF CURRENT PUBLIC-PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERSHIPS IN
NEW ZEALAND ........................................................................................................................ 14
Poutiri Ao ō Tāne: Returning native species to conservation land and surrounding production
landscapes, Hawke’s Bay region ................................................................................................... 15
Administering the Partnership .................................................................................................. 17
Accomplishments ..................................................................................................................... 18
Lessons Learned ....................................................................................................................... 21
Project Aorangi : Energising the community to eliminate pests and restore native birds while
maintaining recreational hunting on conservation land and surrounding pastures, South
Wairarapa coast ........................................................................................................................... 23
Administering the Project......................................................................................................... 26
Accomplishments ..................................................................................................................... 27
Lessons Learned ....................................................................................................................... 28
Brief Partnership Examples: ......................................................................................................... 30
Nelson Forests and Mount Richmond Forest Park: Working together to address wilding pines,
South Marlborough region and the Richmond Range .............................................................. 30
Ruamahanga Cut-Off and the Wairarapa Moana Wetlands Restoration Project: Restoring
wetlands on private pasture in a 50-50 partnership with farmers, Lake Wairarapa and Lake
Onoke and surrounding wetlands, Wairarapa plains .............................................................. 31
Living Water Programme: A partnership with Fonterra and DOC to improve five sensitive
water catchments in dairying regions across the country ......................................................... 33
Marlborough New Zealand Falcon Conservation Programme (formerly Falcons for Grapes):
An unsuccessful attempt to partner with the winegrowing industry to restore rare falcons to
vineyards, Marlborough region ............................................................................................... 35
5
AN EXAMPLE FROM THE UNITED STATES ..................................................................... 36
Forests to Faucets – Restoring forest and watershed health to protect the City and County of
Denver’s municipal water supplies and infrastructure, Colorado, United States.......................... 36
Administering the Partnership .................................................................................................. 37
Accomplishments ..................................................................................................................... 38
Lessons Learned ....................................................................................................................... 39
6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: OPPORTUNITIES RELATED TO
PRIMARY INDUSTRY PARTNERSHIPS .............................................................................. 40
A.
Prospect Phase ..................................................................................................................... 40
Targeting and looking for opportunities – be proactive and approach potential partners with
shared values ............................................................................................................................ 40
Approaching a potential partner – consider using a “go-between” or messenger and
establishing a Business Leadership Council ............................................................................. 41
The Key Message – focus on conservation .............................................................................. 41
Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services Messages ................................................................. 42
Analyse DOC capacity before making commitments .............................................................. 42
Adopt an open and pragmatic approach ................................................................................... 43
Be Cautious – protect your reputation ...................................................................................... 43
B.
Start-up Phase ...................................................................................................................... 44
Be clear on common goals and operating procedures and implement strong project
management techniques from the beginning ............................................................................ 44
The culture clash is inescapable, but both sides have a responsibility to compromise............. 44
C.
Implementation Phase ......................................................................................................... 45
Measurement and associated research is critical ...................................................................... 45
You can’t say thank you enough .............................................................................................. 45
Recommendations for Primary Industry ....................................................................................... 46
Reasons industry should consider public-private partnerships ................................................. 46
Evaluate your business risks and opportunities related to ecosystem services ......................... 47
In Conclusion... ............................................................................................................................. 48
BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................................................................. 49
1
INTRODUCTION
I wrote this report to tell the story of existing public-private sector partnerships and
perceptions between the New Zealand Department of Conservation (DOC) and primary
industry, including lessons learned, opportunities for the future, and comparison with a
relevant example in the United States (US). The following stories and recommendations
will highlight the operational details that can be replicated and thus create a win-winwin scenario for the agency, industry, and the general public.
A secondary goal of my research was to look at whether and how the concepts of
natural capital1 and ecosystem services2 apply to decision-making regarding publicprivate sector partnerships. Therefore, the case studies and recommendations highlight
the conservation and private-sector benefits obtained by both partners, as well as the
motivations of the private sector to get involved.
The focus on partnerships and collaboration is growing in both the US and New Zealand
as the new way of doing business. Gone are the days of natural resource agencies
expecting to act alone and still being able to meet all of their goals. In fact, DOC has
already been working in partnership with other organisations such as iwi, business (i.e.
permittees), other agencies and hundreds of community organisations for many years.
However, recent DOC reorganisations have put even more emphasis on new and
expanded partnerships, especially with business and the private sector.
DOC’s vision is “New Zealand is the greatest living space on Earth”, thus ensuring that
New Zealanders gain environmental, social, and economic benefits from healthy
functioning ecosystems, recreation opportunities, and from living our history. DOC
organises its work around five outcomes:





The diversity of our natural heritage is maintained and restored
Our history is brought to life and protected
New Zealanders and our visitors are enriched by outdoor experiences
New Zealanders connect and contribute to conservation [emphasis added]
Every business fosters conservation for this and future generations [emphasis
added]
These outcomes clearly emphasise the value of partnerships and the need to expand
responsibility for conservation so that it becomes a responsibility of all New
Zealanders. However, whilst the partnership approach has great value, it is critical that
it be approached, designed, and implemented in a way that works well for all parties.
Partnerships are the right notion, but the inner workings need to be evaluated.
–Clive Paton, Ata Rangi Vineyards
Natural capital can be defined and measured in different ways, but one example is “our ‘stock’ of water,
land, air, species, minerals, and oceans. This stock underpins our economy by producing value for people,
both directly and indirectly, such as food, clean air and water, energy, wildlife, recreation, and protection
from hazards.” UK Natural Capital Committee (2014)
1
2
Ecosystem services are the benefits people receive from ecosystems, including: provisioning services
such as food and water; regulating services such as flood and disease control; cultural services such as
spiritual, recreational, and cultural benefits; and supporting services such as nutrient cycling that
maintain the conditions for life on Earth. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003)
3
Martinborough New Zealand
What is a public-private sector partnership and why are they
growing in popularity?
For the purposes of this report, I define “public-private sector partnership” as a national
natural resource agency joining forces with a private sector business whereby both
parties contribute financial support (cash, land, or in-kind services) to generate on-theground conservation that would not have happened otherwise.
While DOC has worked with partners for many years, large commercial public-private
partnerships are a relatively new focus. DOC has a few large commercial partnerships
with businesses such as Fonterra, New Zealand Aluminum Smelters, Genesis Energy,
and Dulux New Zealand, although perhaps the highest profile is with Air New Zealand.
The Air New Zealand partnership began with the airline providing safe and free air
travel for threatened species for relocation and conservation programmes around the
country. Now, there is a three-year partnership in place to promote DOC’s nine Great
Walks,3 with Air New Zealand providing marketing services worth approximately $1
million per annum.4 Through this effort and DOC’s coordinated work, use of the Great
Walks increased by over 20 per cent5 and generated an additional $1 million in total
revenue. Although this increase did not apply universally to all the Great Walks, it did
attract more visits overall – in particular by New Zealanders – and engaged many more
people through social media6 and is viewed as a success by both partners. The
partnership was recently extended to 2017 and will also include promotion of marine
conservation and marine reserves.7
There are similar examples of large commercial partnerships in the US, one of which
is described as a case study later in this report. Another example of a US public-private
partnership is between the US Forest Service and Vail Resorts, which is facilitated by
the not-for-profit National Forest Foundation. Vail Resorts owns and operates eleven
premier ski resorts in Colorado, California, Nevada, Utah and elsewhere, many of
which operate on US Forest Service land. Vail has contributed substantial funding to
on-the-ground projects on US Forest Service land across Colorado – mostly in the
White River National Forest where their Colorado ski areas are located – through the
National Forest Foundation, including:8
3
greatwalks.co.nz
PHV Case Study #1: Gaining Altitude… DOC’s Great Walks and the Air New Zealand partnership
(2015).
4
5
As measured by an increase in overnight stays, with approximately 8,000 more people booking at least
one night per year over a two-year period. The promotion fell short of the goal of attracting an additional
10,000 people per year, but was still significant.
6
The Great Walks promotional campaign attracted 250,000 Twitter followers and 737,000 Facebook
likes.
PHV Case Study #1: Gaining Altitude… DOC’s Great Walks and the Air New Zealand partnership
(2015).
7
8
Vail Resorts – National Forest Foundation – a case study in Public-Private Partnership (2015)
4



Ski Conservation Fund: Enables visitors to donate one to two dollars when
purchasing ski passes or staying in resort lodges. Since 2006, the fund has
invested over $3 million USD on the White River National Forest to support
trail and recreation infrastructure, enhance wildlife habitat, restore streams and
wetlands, protect native wildlife, and reduce noxious weeds.
Habitat Mitigation Partnership: Contributed $350,000 USD over four years to
support projects related to lynx studies, education and habitat.
Hayman Restoration Partnership: Along with many other businesses including
power companies, private foundations, and Coca-Cola, contributed over $2
million USD to restore National Forest land after the catastrophic 2002
Hayman Fire (discussed later in this report) as part of the National Forest
Foundation’s “Treasured Landscapes” partnership. The partnership planted
over 56,000 trees, restored 355 acres of wetlands and riparian areas, restored
four miles of stream channel, and managed nearly 80 miles of recreation trails
and roads.
In an age of declining budgets – faced by both New Zealand and US resource agencies
– a frequent jaded view of partnerships is that they can help backfill for reduced agency
budgets. While agencies may be under-resourced, that is not the most compelling reason
for partnerships. The reality is much more inspiring. Many who care about preserving
natural resources, solving environmental problems, and restoring the world’s
biodiversity have realised that conservation must involve more people and occur across
traditional property line boundaries. If society is going to mitigate environmental
problems on developed and agricultural land, it must develop sustainable land use
practices that integrate extractive resource use with conservation, rather than separately
allocating land to either development or conservation. If we do not do so, future
generations will experience only unsustainable islands of nature (i.e. National Parks) in
a sea of modified land.9
Protecting nature is a huge job, and we can’t do it alone...that’s why DOC has
increased its focus to engaging, partnering, and supporting others to get
involved and contribute to conservation. DOC staff are still specialists at
mucking in and getting important work done; but we also need to be inspiring,
educating and informing others about conservation issues, and finding ways to
mobilise New Zealanders to get involved and support them to play their part.
–DOC’s Conservation Partnerships
kete (“kit”) for partnerships staff
Successful partnerships with business show that DOC is responsive and can
create alliances with the commercial sector, which is aligned with Government
desire for public-private partnership. Our partnership helps enhance both the
Air New Zealand and DOC brands across a wide range of audiences. More
importantly, the credibility of our brand and our ability to communicate in a
manner that is respected and accessible means that contributing to conservation
feels more normalised, for both other commercial businesses and for individuals.
–James Gibson, Air New Zealand
9
Moller et al. (2008)
5
There is also a variety of reasons that the private sector chooses to partner with DOC or
other resource agencies, such as corporate responsibility, competitiveness, and
legitimisation. A brief discussion of these motivators from global sustainability research
is included in the next chapter of this report. In my conclusions, I incorporate these
general findings from scientific literature with the lessons learned from my case studies
and interviews to give DOC and New Zealand primary industry specific insights into
why, and how, engaging in a partnership could be mutually beneficial.
Why focus on primary industry?
This report focuses on primary industry – dairy, meat, wool, forestry, fruit and wine –
for several reasons. First, DOC already has a reasonably strong existing partnership
programme with the recreation and tourism industry, but is only just beginning to
partner with the primary sector. Second, primary industry is the base of the New
Zealand economy and constitutes more than half of exported goods.10
There is also tension between DOC and primary industry. Historically, there is still
resentment from some in the primary sector that DOC has “locked-up” or wasted
natural resources. In addition, DOC – in its regulatory role – is sometimes in an
adversarial role with primary industry. This tension is perhaps inevitable because while
DOC manages approximately one-third of the country’s land area for conservation,
primary production accounts for the remaining majority of the country’s land area and
can cause significant effects on the environment. It is possible this tension will increase
in coming years because New Zealand’s Government is working to double the value of
primary industry exports by 2025 as part of the Business Growth Agenda.11
10
New Zealand Economic and Financial Overview 2015 (24 March 2015). Agriculture, forestry and
fishing accounts for nearly 6% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
The Export Goal (5 March 2015). The Government’s Business Growth Agenda calls for increasing
exports as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product from 30% to 40% by 2025, which would correspond
to doubling the value of primary industry exports from $32 billion in June 2012 to over $64 billion by
2025.
11
6
2
BACKGROUND
New Zealand Land Use and Economy
There are three main land uses in New Zealand: production, conservation, and urban
development. New Zealand is home to approximately 4.5 million people, about 73 per
cent of whom live in urban areas. Over one-third of land is legally protected for
conservation purposes, with the remaining majority used for primary production
(agriculture, planted production forestry, and horticulture). 12
Clean and Green
The natural world is a core part of New Zealand’s identity, and the nation has an
excellent reputation internationally and banks on its worldwide image as clean and
green. This international reputation has a significant export value and is a key driver of
the value of goods and services in the international market place. This image is
exemplified in its 100% Pure New Zealand international campaign by Tourism New
Zealand, which has been running continuously since 1999. New Zealanders have a
passion for and understanding of green growth issues,13 and many New Zealanders
believe that conservation is at the heart of what it means to be a New Zealander.14
Primary Industry
Primary production is the base of the New Zealand economy and comprises more than
half of exported goods. The industries included in this report are agriculture ($26.7
billion in sales) and forestry ($5.1 billion in sales). Within agricultural products, dairy
alone comprises more than half of total sales, followed by sheep, beef, and horticulture
(Table 1).
Table 1: Sales of principal categories of primary products in New Zealand, 201415
Products
2014 Sales
(million $)
Agricultural Products
Dairy
Sheepmeat
Cattle
Fruit (primarily kiwifruit, wine, apples and
pears)
Vegetables
Sales of live animals
Crops and seeds
Wool
Other (non-farm income, other horticulture,
services, deer, poultry/eggs, pigs)
Forestry
12
New Zealand Economic and Financial Overview 2015 (24 March 2015)
13
Greening New Zealand’s Growth (2011)
14
Nielsen Company (2014)
15
New Zealand Economic and Financial Overview 2015 (24 March 2015)
7
14,637
2,518
2,209
2,030
1,027
895
703
580
2,100
5,100
Dairy has grown to be the dominant primary industry and 95 per cent of dairy products
are exported. In fact, three to four per cent of all the world’s dairy products come from
New Zealand,16 which is a rather remarkable number for a country that contains far less
than 0.1 per cent of the world’s population and land area.17
Tension has risen in recent years over the environmental impact of the growing dairy
industry and concerns that it could undermine New Zealand’s clean and green image.18
Dairying can cause effects such as pollution of surface and groundwater, destruction of
wetland and lowland native forest for farm development, indirect damage to freshwater
and estuarine habitat through contamination and nutrient pollution of surface and
groundwater, loss of native biodiversity (through damage or destruction of native
habitat), soil erosion, soil contamination, and damage to soil structure, and discharge of
greenhouse gases.19
The dairy industry has made efforts to reduce environmental impact with actions such
as fencing off streams, rivers, and significant wetlands, encouraging appropriate
disposal of effluent, and management of nutrients applied to farms soils. However,
despite these efforts, water quality continues to decline in many areas used for dairying
and intensive farm production. Compounding the issue is that even if these
improvements are effective, they are often offset by intensification of production, or the
conversion of lower intensity land uses such as sheep and beef farming or forestry to
higher intensity uses such as dairying, cropping, and horticulture.20
In very general terms, other primary industries, such as sheep, beef, and horticulture,
can cause similar problems with water quality and quantity and native species habitat.
Forestry is generally seen as a less impactful land use because it stabilizes soil and can
absorb greenhouse gases, but even that industry can cause environmental impacts, such
as post-harvest erosion or wilding pine invasions.
The tensions between primary industry and conservation are likely to intensify as the
central government pushes to double the value of exports by 2025 (Figure 1), especially
if that goal is met by doubling primary production rather than diversifying into highervalue products.
16
Stringleman and Scrimgeour (2012)
17
World Bank (2015)
18
Stewart (2012)
19
Mairi and Morad (2007)
20
Mairi and Morad (2007)
8
Figure 1. Sharon Gay Murdock cartoon published in the Dominion Post, The Press, Timaru Herald and Waikato
Times on 21 March 2015.
Department of Conservation
DOC was formed in 1987 by the Conservation Act and is the central government agency
charged with promoting conservation of the natural and historic heritage of New
Zealand on behalf of, and for the benefit of, present and future New Zealanders. DOC’s
responsibilities include, but are not limited to:










In coordination with others, maintaining as much as possible, the integrity of
New Zealand’s indigenous ecosystems
Acting as guardian to some of New Zealand’s cultural and historic heritage
Contributing to the recreation opportunities of all New Zealanders
Supporting tourism
Giving effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (in accordance with
section 4 of the Conservation Act of 1987)
Protection of marine mammals
Preservation of native freshwater fisheries and habitat
Conserving protected native wildlife wherever it occurs
Serving as the lead advisor on the Convention on Biological Diversity and
other international agreements
Advocating generally for the protection of natural and historic resources,
providing technical expertise, and promoting the economic, environmental and
social benefits of conservation.
In addition, DOC’s capital assets include:




8.5 million hectares of land including 14 national parks, generally referred to
as “conservation lands,” which is nearly a third of the country
38 marine reserves (1.7 million hectares)
Six marine mammal sanctuaries (2.4 million hectares)
24 visitor centres, 14,000 km of track, and 976 huts21
To meet these responsibilities, the agency has roughly 1,800 staff and an annual budget
of approximately $385 million. This is a tremendous amount of work for 1,800
employees, and many see the agency as under-resourced. For example, DOC is only
attempting to manage about 300 of more than 2,000 threatened species in New Zealand
due to budgetary constraints.
21
New Zealand Department of Conservation Annual Report (2014)
9
While DOC may be low in government budgetary support, it enjoys a remarkable
amount of support from the general public. In fact, it is one of the most appreciated
public agencies in New Zealand, and a large majority (74 per cent) of New Zealanders
have a favourable view because they believe the agency is doing a good job, provides
good facilities and services, and/or is looking after the nation’s parks, sites, and tracks.22
In 2013, when the Government proposed significant budget cuts for DOC, the public
turned out for a “Love DOC Day” to push back on the cuts.23 The 2015 Most Influential
Brands in New Zealand study ranked DOC eighth of the most influential brands in New
Zealand based on high scores for environmental and social responsibility, actively
caring and supporting New Zealand communities, and as a trusted brand in the public
domain.24 And finally, in 2015 DOC was selected among the nation’s 150 largest
companies as the winner of the Randstad Award, which means it is perceived by the
general public to have an attractive image.25
In an effort to increase effectiveness, DOC has been through a series of significant
restructures in recent years. The most recent one is currently underway and results will
be announced later in 2015.
Biodiversity and Pest Control
One of the top conservation issues for DOC (which is often a surprise for US
colleagues) is actively managing predator pests such as rats, stoats, and possums in
order to preserve the nation’s biodiversity. Around 90 per cent of New Zealand’s birds
and insects are found nowhere else on earth, yet the nation has one of the highest
proportions of threatened species in the world.
With the exception of bats, New Zealand’s biodiversity evolved with no land mammals.
Therefore, these unique species are extremely vulnerable to predation by introduced
mammals such as brush-tail possums (“possums”), stoats, and rats. New Zealand was
one of the last places on earth to be settled by humans, yet in the past 800 years, humans
and their accompanying pests have made extinct:






32 per cent of indigenous land and freshwater birds
18 per cent of seabirds
Three of seven frogs
At least 12 invertebrates such as snails and insects
One fish, one bat, and perhaps three reptiles
At least 11 plants26
Possums, stoats, and rats are widespread throughout New Zealand and are the biggest
and most immediate risk to survival of many native birds.27 These pests compete with
native species for food and habitat and eat the adults, eggs, and chicks of many rare
native birds, reptiles, and invertebrates. The problem is so severe that roughly 90 per
22
Nielsen Company (2014)
23
Matthews (2013)
24
Tao (2015)
25
Randstad (2015)
26
The New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy (2000)
27
Innes et al. (2010)
10
cent of the iconic kiwi that are hatched in the wild will die before they can reproduce,
unless predator control is in place.28 Brush-tail possums (“possums,” native to
Australia and quite different from the North America opossum) are also the main
carrier of bovine tuberculosis (“TB”), a highly infectious disease for farmed cattle and
deer that poses a significant threat to one of the country’s top industries.
Besides the impact on native biodiversity, introduced pests also have real economic
costs for New Zealand. The “defensive cost” for the public sector, including
quarantine and border control, surveillance, research, pest control, and eradication, is
estimated at $836 million per year. The “output losses” for the agriculture,
horticulture, forestry, and marine sectors is estimated at $1.3 billion per year.
Together, these economic costs measure at 1.86 per cent of GDP.29
All of this means that New Zealand and DOC have one of the most sophisticated pest
control programmes in the world. The three predominant pest control methods
discussed later in this report include:30
Trapping: There are many different designs, including kill traps, leg-hold traps,
and cage traps. The traps are placed in the field and must be checked regularly
based on their design.
Poison: While DOC has 11 poisons approved for use against mammalian pests,
the one that is most used is 1080 (sodium fluoroacetate). 1080 can be
incorporated into baits targeted to specific pests, and is mostly used in ground
operations (placed in bait stations or applied directly to the ground) to control
possums and bovine TB. It can also be applied aerially over large remote areas,
but this can be controversial.31
Predator-proof fencing: New Zealand has revolutionised building specialised
fenced sanctuaries to exclude pest mammals, such as the Zealandia Sanctuary
in Wellington. These fences can be very effective at protecting native species
inside the fence, but they are expensive to build and maintain and require the
removal of pests within the fenced area by trapping or poisoning.
In 2012, the late Professor Sir Paul Callaghan – a respected New Zealand scientist, New
Zealander of the Year, and thought-leader – gave his final public lecture on this topic:
“What do we have that marks us out as unique in the world?” He compared New
Zealand’s unique fauna to the likes of England’s Stonehenge and China’s Great Wall
and went on to suggest his “mad” idea – which he called the New Zealand equivalent
of the Apollo space programme:
Let’s get rid of the lot. Let’s get rid of all the damn mustelids, all the rats, all the
possums, from the mainland islands of New Zealand. We start with Rakiura
[Stewart Island]. And we work our way up. We can do this. We know how to do
it – A predator-free New Zealand.
–Sir Paul Callaghan, 13 February 2012
28
Animal Pests (n.d.)
29
Economic Costs of Pests to New Zealand (2008)
30
Evaluating the use of 1080: Predators, poisons, and silent forests (2011)
31
Ibid.
11
Barriers and Motivations for Businesses to Adopt Sustainability
Practices, and Applications to New Zealand
There is a significant and growing body of international research about the drivers for
businesses to adopt sustainability practices, such as water conservation, waste stream
management, or reduction in use of toxic chemicals. A public-private partnership with
DOC is a kind of sustainability practice, thus some of these general findings from the
academic literature are useful for context and to inform strategy.
In general, there are many reasons that companies may want to adopt environmental
practices, including:




Complying with regulation and legislation32
Competitive advantage and market success (achieving profitability by
reducing cost and enhancing efficiencies or by gaining rewards from
consumers)33
Legitimisation, approval, or acceptability, including reputation and the desire
to be perceived as satisfying government regulations, complying with
environmental norms and satisfying external stakeholders34
Company internal-improvement – optimising internal processes and related
cost savings35
Many of these findings apply to large and international corporations, so it is important
to look at the barriers typically cited by small and medium-sized businesses when
considering environmental practices. Collins et al. completed a comprehensive
literature review to apply to the small- and medium-sized businesses that are typical of
New Zealand, and identified the following barriers:36



Perception that they have little individual impact on the environment,
especially in comparison to larger corporations
Lack of capability, expertise, and understanding of strategies to address
environmental issues
Concern over the cost of these measures.
This study and another that specifically analysed the New Zealand wine industry found
that the key factors to overcome these barriers for small and medium-sized businesses
in New Zealand were the beliefs and values of senior management.37 The personal
preferences of shareholders also play a role, and an important factor for the wine
industry was employees’ personal satisfaction, i.e. having a pleasant place of
employment. This reflects the idea that the people who manage corporations – and to a
lesser extent the people who work for them – choose to represent their personal values.
Individuals’ personal values are fundamentally important drivers of proactive
environmental behaviour.
32
Lozano (2015)
33
Gabzdylova et al. (2009), Bansal and Roth (2005), Windolph et al. (2014)
34
Windolph et al. (2014), Suchman (1995), Lozano (2015)
35
Windolph et al. (2014), Shrivastava and Hart (1995)
36
Collins et al. (2007)
37
Collins et al. (2007), Lozano (2015), and Gabzdylova et al. (2009)
12
3
METHODOLOGY
The primary goal of this report was to tell the story of existing public-private sector
partnerships and perceptions between DOC and primary industry, including lessons
learned, opportunities for the future, and comparison with a relevant example in the US.
A secondary goal was to look at whether and how the concepts of natural capital and
ecosystem services could apply to decision-making regarding public-private sector
partnerships.
In order to meet these goals, I proceeded with a two-part research plan: (1) case studies
of existing public-private sector partnerships; and (2) semi-structured interviews with
New Zealand business and opinion leaders. In total, I met with over 75 individuals
during the course of my research to gather information and background.
The projects selected for case studies were first suggested by DOC staff, and informed
by document reviews, interviews with involved individuals over the phone and in
person, and field visits when possible. The case studies highlight the conservation and
private-sector benefits obtained by both partners, as well as the motivations of the
private sector to get involved.
The 32 business and opinion leaders selected for semi-structured interviews were
recommended by DOC, business colleagues, or identified through research. While I
was unable to arrange a time with all the busy individuals I approached, the sample I
did connect with were generally interested in the issue and therefore had useful insights
to share. However, since they were somewhat self-selected based on interest, their
opinions may not be broadly applicable across all of their peers.
The interviews were semi-structured and followed the time constraints and
conversation flow of the speaker, but the general questions included:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Please begin by telling me about your organisation and your role?
What is the future of your industry, and what are your major risks?
Does DOC have an effect at all – or could it – on your business?
What is your business’s relationship with DOC?
Are you familiar with partnerships DOC is developing with outside entities,
particularly with business?
Does your business/industry donate/sponsor charities in your community?
What motivates you to support this entity?
What value can DOC provide to your business?
How would you suggest that DOC approach you as a partner or with an idea
for a new project?
Who else should I talk to?
The interviews provided many valuable insights. I incorporated the themes from the
interviews with the lessons learned from the case studies to inform the conclusions and
recommendations at the end of this report.
13
4
CASE STUDIES OF CURRENT PUBLIC-PRIVATE
SECTOR PARTNERSHIPS IN NEW ZEALAND
This chapter includes case studies of several existing public-private sector partnerships.
Two stories are detailed and include accomplishments, governance structures, and
lessons learned. Following these are four brief examples of other partnerships that
provide useful examples and lessons, but were not advanced or developed enough for a
detailed case study. The two detailed case studies include:


Poutiri Ao ō Tāne – Returning native species to conservation land and
surrounding production landscapes, Hawke’s Bay region
Project Aorangi – Energising the community to eliminate pests and restore
native birds while maintaining recreational hunting opportunities on
conservation land and surrounding pastures, South Wairarapa coast
The brief examples of other case studies include:




Nelson Forests and Mount Richmond Forest Park: Working together to
address wilding pines, South Marlborough region and the Richmond Range
Ruamahunga Cut-Off and the Wairarapa Moana Wetlands Restoration
Project: Restoring wetlands on private pasture in a 50-50 partnership with
farmers, Lake Wairarapa and Lake Onoke and surrounding wetlands,
Wairarapa plains
Living Water Programme: A partnership with Fonterra and DOC to improve
five sensitive water catchments in dairying regions across the country
Marlborough New Zealand Falcon Conservation Programme (formerly
Falcons for Grapes): An unsuccessful attempt to partner with the
winegrowing industry to restore rare falcons to vineyards, Marlborough
region
14
Poutiri Ao ō Tāne: Returning native species
to conservation land and surrounding
production landscapes, Hawke’s Bay
region38
Quick View
Area and Setting
8,800 ha in the Maungaharuru-Tutira catchment 60km north of Napier, centred
on DOC’s Boundary Stream Mainland Island (702 ha) and including
surrounding commercial forest and pasturelands.
Timeframe
3-year programme began in 2011; contract extended in 2015
Goal
Return native species to the area on both DOC conservation lands and adjacent
agricultural and plantation forestry landscapes
Partners
Conservation
Benefits
Private Sector
Benefits
DOC ($161,760)
Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) ($206,800)
Aotearoa Foundation ($927,600)
Landcare Research ($60,000)
Iwi, environmental education and community organisations
Private Sector
 Sheep and beef farmers
 Pan Pac Forest Products
 Reintroduction of 4 bird species: Cook’s petrel, mottled petrel, kākāriki,
and kākā on DOC land
 Habitat restoration on non-DOC land including fencing and restoration
plantings
For farmers: Developed cost-effective expanded predator control for mustelids
(i.e. stoats and ferrets) that coordinates with existing possum control for bovine
TB eradication and is easy for farmers to maintain (costs reduced from $8$10/ha to $2-$3/ha per year). Early research indicates that a landscape-scale
pest management programme that includes feral cat control could deliver
tangible economic benefits to sheep farmers by reducing the incidence of
toxoplasmosis.
For Pan Pac: Corporate citizenship; Strong relationship with agencies
Extended benefits The experience and knowledge gained from this partnership created the
opportunity to scale-up predator control and ecological restoration on the new
26,000-ha Cape to City project, launched in April 2015.
Case study drawn from a variety of sources, including: Cape To City 2015; Poutiri Ao ō Tāne Project
Impact Report: 2014; Poutiri Ao ō Tāne Project Learning Exercise 2014 (Internal); Poutiri Ao ō Tāne
Project report prepared for the Aotearoa Foundation (2014); and interviews with Melissa BrignallTheyer, David Carlton, Rod Dickson, Brett Gilmore, Sarah Kafka, Campbell Leckie and Shayne Walker.
38
15
In 2010, the Aotearoa Foundation39 approached DOC with an idea to invest significant
dollars towards restoring native biodiversity that would connect the mountains to the
sea in the Hawke’s Bay region. The Foundation was founded by the Robertson family,
which is one of the three major landowners behind the nearby privately-owned and
funded wildlife restoration project called Cape Sanctuary. DOC discussed the
opportunity with other conservation partners and jointly designed a project that was part
of a long-held regional vision for biodiversity that would include the mountains, sea,
and native bush remnants. It took nearly a year to propose the project in a form that was
finally accepted by the Aotearoa Foundation, and the Foundation granted DOC
$930,000 NZD over 3 years to be matched with in-kind contributions from DOC and
the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC).
The resulting project was Poutiri Ao ō Tāne, an 8,800 hectare project in the
Maungaharuru-Tutira catchment that includes DOC’s Boundary Stream Mainland
Island40 as well as surrounding farmland and plantation forests. The purpose of Poutiri
Ao ō Tāne is to show that large-scale conservation can occur in harmony with
surrounding non-conservation lands including those in agriculture and production
forestry. In particular, the goal of the project was to reintroduce native birds and design
and apply large-scale predator control over both conservation lands and pastoral
landscapes to determine if these techniques can boost native species and their use of the
remaining native forest, such as Boundary Stream.
DOC was already controlling pests on Boundary Stream, and many surrounding lands
had possum control led by the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC). However,
Poutiri Ao ō Tāne proposed to expand to landscape-scale pest control beyond possums
to include top-level predators such as cats, stoats, ferrets, and rats. This expanded
predator control is critical to support the survival of native species including birds,
skinks, and invertebrates while providing a buffer to protect species reintroduced into
Boundary Stream. The Poutiri Ao ō Tāne vision is that eventually native birds will “spill
over” into surrounding areas.
We see the beating wings of birds returning to the forests of New
Zealand and vulnerable species flourishing in the midst of sustainable
agricultural production.
- Vision of Poutiri Ao ō Tāne
39
The Aotearoa Foundation is a division of the Robertson Foundation, which was founded in 1996 by
Julian and Josie Robertson and their family. The Robertsons own property on Cape Kidnappers, which
is a large peninsula in Hawke’s Bay. Much of Cape Kidnappers is a privately owned nature sanctuary
that is also restoring native birds, but it is not part of the Poutiri Ao ō Tāne project area.
40
Boundary Stream is one of five Mainland Islands managed by DOC. Mainland Island management is
modeled after DOC’s successful predator pest eradication efforts on offshore islands, but are mainland
sites where DOC is working to protect and restore native biodiversity through an intensive regime of
options such as trapping, hunting, poisoning, and predator-proof fences which reduce predator pests to
near-zero levels. (Mainland islands 2015)
16
Administering the Partnership
The role and work of some partners shifted over time, but in general their roles included:








DOC: Served as lead agency and led species reintroductions and predator pest
control on DOC lands and adjacent Pan Pac-managed forestry lands;
The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC): Led predator pest control on
agricultural lands based on existing strong relationships with local farmers
from their Possum Area Control Programme;
Aotearoa Foundation: Funded species reintroductions and fencing and
infrastructure;
Landcare Research (a Crown Research Institute): Led critical research that
enabled species reintroductions, especially the seabird relocation programme.
Landcare Research also played a critical role in documenting the success of
the enhanced predator pest control system;
Iwi including Maungaharuru Tangitu Inc, Ngati Pahauwera, and Ngati
Hineuru: Participated in some decision-making and supported species
reintroductions and iwi community involvement.
Local farmers: Participating farmers allowed predator pest control activities,
researchers, and/or habitat restoration on their land, and it is expected that
many of them will assume maintenance of pest traps in the next phase of the
project;
Pan Pac Forest Products: Allowed expanded predator control for stoats and
ferrets on the plantation forest they manage adjacent to Boundary Stream. Pan
Pac also contributes funding to DOC’s Pan Pac Kiwi Crèche, which is a
nearby predator-proof area for young kiwi and will play a role in other
upcoming reintroductions, such as blue duck (whio).
Local education and conservation groups: Support education efforts and
provide volunteer assistance for projects.
Most partners were represented in a Strategic Steering Group administered by DOC.
However, there was some confusion from the beginning on the actual role of the
Strategic Steering Group. Several partners – especially iwi – had expected that the
Group would make decisions about Poutiri Ao ō Tāne implementation while DOC
expected it to be more of a tool for community-building and information-sharing.
The Strategic Steering Group met between three to five times per year and became
largely a forum for information-sharing, especially since the representative sent from
each partner changed frequently and new attendees had to start with background and
basic updates.
There was some occasional discomfort between DOC and the Aotearoa Foundation
which seems to be based on the different cultures of the two organisations. The
Foundation is based in the US where it is not standard to grant private Foundation funds
to government entities. Similarly, DOC had its own budgeting and task-setting
processes and needed time to learn the Foundation’s reporting requirements and
accomplishment expectations. The final Poutiri Ao ō Tāne proposal included six
workstreams: habitat restoration; species reintroductions; landscape-scale predator pest
control; research; education; and community and stakeholder involvement. Most of the
Foundation funds were allocated to species reintroduction and the infrastructure needed
17
to support it, while the other functions were to be done mostly in-kind by DOC or
HBRC.
As the project advanced, species reintroductions and landscape-scale pest control
advanced well. Unfortunately, other functions stalled, such as implementing a
community engagement and revenue generation strategy. These efforts were shifted to
be part of the larger vision that became the Cape to City Project launched in April 2015,
and are addressed below in ‘lessons learned.’
Accomplishments
Direct conservation accomplishments
Species reintroductions: Perhaps the most dramatic and photogenic accomplishment is
the reintroduction of kākā (brown parrots), kākāriki (yellow-crowned parakeets),
Cook’s petrel (tītī) and mottled petrel (kori) to Boundary Stream. Translocations are
resource-intensive, but are critical for long-term conservation of threatened species. All
of these birds are severely threatened and generally restricted to offshore islands and/or
mainland islands protected by predator-proof fences. In fact, this is the first time
anywhere in the world that mottled petrels have been translocated.
Two of six kākā reintroduced into the wild at Boundary Stream in
February 2014. DOC constructed the kākā aviary, feeding stations,
and predator-proof nest boxes in 2011, and the birds were
transferred to the aviary from Wellington Zoo and Puhaka Mount
Bruce in 2012. [photo credit Ruud Kleinpaste]
The species reintroductions are of particular importance to DOC and the local Māori,
especially the Maungaharuru Tutira iwi because they are culturally linked to the
massive flocks of seabirds that historically flew in from the sea to nest in these
mountains. In fact, the name Maungaharuru translates to “roaring/rumbling mountain,”
which refers to the historic daily flights of seabirds inland to nest and rest, which would
fill the sky with wings and a roaring sound.
This project is amazing. The translocation of those muttonbirds – those petrels
– up there has our tribe absolutely beaming. We’re doing backflips over that
stuff. When I can promote that we’ve had more than 100 muttonbirds
translocated back to our mountains, everyone just says, wow, that’s amazing.
18
So we’re really excited. Our aspirations are to reconnect with our resources…
we want to learn more and re-establish our kaitiakitanga (“guardianship or
custodianship”).
—Shayne Walker, Maungaharuru Tutira Inc, General Manager
Burrows under construction for the petrel translocation. The predator-proof
fence was constructed in 2012, and in March 2013, DOC translocated 50 young
Cook’s petrel from Little Barrier Island. 48 of these birds successfully fledged
(developed wing feathers enough to fly away). In 2014, DOC translocated 45
mottled petrel from Codfish Island. [photo credit: DOC]
Landscape-scale Predator Pest Control: The Poutiri Ao ō Tāne coalition has
successfully controlled pests over 8,000 ha including DOC’s Boundary Stream and
surrounding production forests and agricultural lands. Research indicates that HBRC’s
control methods have already benefitted native skinks and invertebrates. Project
partners expect that ongoing research will indicate that the predator control also benefits
native birds and helps reduce incidences of predator pests reinvading Boundary
Stream.41 A truly transformational outcome is that the HBRC has now developed lowcost predator pest control methods for stoats, ferrets, and feral cats of $2 to $3 per
hectare. This accomplishment is based on HBRC’s successful Possum Area Control
Programme (PACP) which began several years earlier. While possum control was
driven by the need to control tuberculosis, PACP had the side-effect of reducing
possums to low enough levels so that it became affordable to also control stoats, ferrets,
and feral cats.
Habitat restoration: Eight supportive private landowners restored native habitat on a
total of 124 hectares and erected 10,240 metres of fencing to protect native species from
goats and livestock. In addition, volunteers planted at least 4,500 native plants as part
of the community involvement strategy.
41
Jones et al. (2015)
19
Direct private sector benefits: Pan Pac is satisfied with their involvement even though
they do not calculate a direct economic benefit because it was an opportunity to show
their corporate responsibility and maintain strong personal relationships with natural
resource agencies:
It’s all about maintaining our relationships because we are here for the long
haul and want to be seen as good operators.
—Brett Gilmore, Pan Pac Forest Products
Local beef farmers benefit from the continued success of keeping bovine TB away from
their herds. However, an important future economic benefit for local sheep farmers has
emerged from the research conducted as part of Poutiri. Although predator pest control
is critical to maintain native birds, skinks, and invertebrates, emerging research
indicates that if the landscape-scale techniques developed for Poutiri were also applied
to feral cats, they could reduce the spread of toxoplasmosis to sheep herds and thus save
farmers the larger cost of pre-emptive vaccinations.42 The pest control technology
piloted as part of Poutiri has reduced maintenance costs for possum, stoat, and ferret
control from $8 to $10 per hectare to $2 to $3 per hectare per annum.
In the last few years we’ve seen an unbelievable reduction in possum numbers
and a huge increase in birds. I can now plant trees and be confident that they
will survive because the possums aren’t there anymore… Farmers don’t have
a lot of time to continually check bait stations and traps so using this technology
is going to make a big difference for us… If toxoplasmosis spread by feral cats
could be brought under control that would be a real economic benefit to
farmers. Bringing clever science and clever technology together is a win-win
for farmers who can enjoy more production and biodiversity.
—Bruce Wills, Hawke’s Bay farmer and former Federated Farmers of New
Zealand President
Extended benefits: Perhaps the greatest indicator of success for Poutiri Ao ō Tāne is
that it is being dramatically expanded over a five-year period. The next phase is known
as Cape to City and was launched in Napier on 30 April 2015. Cape to City will build
on Poutiri and focus on ultra low-cost, large-scale predator control across 26,000-ha of
farmland between Hastings and Cape Kidnappers, and extends southwards to include
Waimarama forest remnants at Kahuranaki. The goal of Cape to City is even more
transformational and aims to achieve a predator-free Hawke’s Bay, restore native
species, engage people in urban environments, and add value for farm businesses:
“native species thrive where we live, work, and play.” This project includes a similar
suite of partners totalling a $6 million investment, including $2.3 million from the
Aotearoa Foundation. This project has an enormous amount of energy behind it – as
evidenced by the full-room crowd at the launch – and Poutiri Ao ō Tāne was the
stepping stone that gave the partners the confidence to expand.
42
Tompkins (2014)
20
Lessons Learned
Research and monitoring is critical: The partnership with Landcare and HBRC to
monitor the results of pest control helped refine methodology and show results such as
the connection to toxoplasmosis and increase in skink and invertebrate numbers. This
kind of research and monitoring should be continued and shared widely in a format
accessible by other partners, academics, and the general public so as to build
recognition and support for the project.
Governance was a limiting factor: Confusion over joint governance led to resentment
and eventual disengagement by some stakeholders. For a true collaborative effort, some
form of steering committee should have had some decision-making and implementation
authority. However, Poutiri’s Strategic Steering Group effectively served as an
information-sharing and public relations forum. The perception is that DOC was the
major decision-maker for the Foundation funds. DOC can manage this issue by taking
the time to set very clear expectations and governance structures early. For example, if
the funder chooses to set specific milestones that cannot be changed, then all partners
should be made aware. Similarly, expectations should be discussed, set, and agreedupon early so that all partners are aware of the responsibilities and capacity required to
participate in decision-making. DOC is aware that a governance and potentially a
community/public relations group should have been established at the outset and these
issues are being addressed in the new Cape to City project.
DOC capacity, staff turnover, internal reorganisations, and a lack of project
management were limiting factors: The fact that the Boundary Stream team leader
changed multiple times during the three-year project undermines the institutional
knowledge, continuity and relationship-building that is a core component of a
successful partnership. While this partnership is between agencies, it is the knowledge
and relationships between people that make it work. In addition, DOC committed to the
project with existing staff resources that struggled to manage their existing workload as
well as these considerable new responsibilities. Strong project management techniques
and transition planning could have compensated for some of these issues, but the lack
of capacity and accountability is one of the reasons why key commitments such as
community and stakeholder engagement were not implemented. DOC commissioned
detailed plans from the Giblin Group for both revenue generation and community
engagement, and the lack of implementation was a waste of resources and a risk to the
long-term sustainability of the project.
Lack of early two-way communication was a limiting factor: The original proposal
accepted by the Foundation had unrealistic commitments and timeframes because it did
not include enough input from knowledgeable partners. For example, petrel
translocations are complex and did not involve the people who knew the complexities
of the site or account for the time it would take iwi to negotiate when Waitangi Treaty
settlements were underway. These were both factors that led to a translocation that was
two years “late” according to the original Aotearoa Foundation grant timeframe. In
addition, DOC incorrectly communicated that maintenance of predator control
operations would transfer to the local community in the short-term, even though the
HBRC was the entity leading predator control operations and planning. The Poutiri
project may also have benefitted from early conversations and work to understand the
needs of neighbouring private landowners, which could have led to more expansive
goals and buy-in from other property-owners. This failure to agree on reasonable
21
expectations at the beginning created later stress with the Foundation and could have
jeopardised continued funding.
Iwi engagement in species reintroductions is critical: The relationship between DOC
and the local iwi is exceptional. Poutiri successfully engaged them in the reintroduction
at many stages from early negotiations to monitoring and construction of nesting boxes.
This engagement broadens the purpose of the project and builds support, expertise, and
manpower for this and other projects. DOC should keep iwi involved from the very
beginning developmental stages of a project so that they do not feel that others are
making decisions for them.
22
Project Aorangi : Energising the
community to eliminate pests and restore
native birds while maintaining recreational
hunting on conservation land and
surrounding pastures, South Wairarapa
coast43
Quick View
Area and Setting
30,000 ha on the South Wairarapa coast and Aorangi mountain range,
including Cape Palliser, DOC’s 19,000 ha Aorangi Forest Park, 2,000 ha
owned by Ngāti Hinewaka, and about 20 surrounding sheep and beef farms.
Timeframe
Small-scale community efforts have been in place for some time, but the
Aorangi Project began in earnest with the creation of the Aorangi Restoration
Trust in 2011 and kick-off of a 10-year large-scale predator pest control
strategy in August 2014.
Goal
To reverse the degradation of local indigenous species through the eradication
of introduced pests and predators from the forest and surrounding farmland.
The long-term vision is to enable the reintroduction of locally extinct species
and to ultimately reintroduce species such as kiwi, whio (blue duck), weka and
other forest birds which once populated the Aorangi forest.
Partners
Aorangi Restoration Trust, Ngāti Hinewaka, DOC, Aorangi Recreational
Hunters, DOC, TBfree NZ (OSPRI); Greater Wellington Regional Council.
Private Sector
Conservation
Benefits
Private Sector
Benefits
 Sheep and beef farmers
 Large-scale predator control for possums, rats, and stoats implemented on
30,000 ha
For farmers:
 Cattle and deer herds free from tuberculosis.
 Being a good neighbour and supporting the larger goal of ecological
restoration in the area.
Extended benefits With support from DOC and others, TBfree New Zealand designed a 10-year
aerial 1080 poisoning operation that delivered a “triple hit” on possums, stoats,
and rats for nearly the same cost as standard TB possum control. This
methodology can now be deployed elsewhere.
43
Case study drawn from a variety of sources, including: Project Aorangi (2015), Hartley (2014), Project
Aorangi – Haumanu kia Haumoko (2014), and interviews with Chris Lester, Paul Cutfield, and Clive
Paton.
23
The major kick-start for Project Aorangi occurred in 2014 when TBfree New Zealand
began a ten-year effort to control possums, stoats, and rats across the 30,000 ha area
with a targeted 1080 aerial pest control programme. However, this major action was
only possible because of many previous years of commitment, leadership, and
community-building.
The Aorangis are the remote and rugged southern tip of the North Island, and have a
direct line to the Antarctic. The rocky coastline supports a breeding colony of fur seals,
and extends to include lowland forest, highland forest, and rivers and related habitat.
Project Aorangi is centred on DOC’s 19,000 ha Aorangi Forest Park, which is popular
with red deer hunters and is one of eight Recreational Hunting Areas established on
conservation land.44 In addition to hunting opportunities, locals promote the Forest
Park’s great tramping and mountain biking opportunities, which seem under-utilizised
considering that the region is only two hours from the capital city of Wellington. The
Forest Park is mostly surrounded by large sheep and beef farms and about 2,000 ha of
land owned by Ngāti Hinewaka.
The community first began to come together several years ago when hunters and
conservationists who shared a love of the area began to talk with TBfree New Zealand,
iwi, DOC, the Greater Wellington Regional Council, and other community groups for
common purpose. A key step occurred when neighbouring landowner and selfproclaimed “mad tree-planter” Clive Paton started talking to DOC about the condition
of the Forest Park. Clive is a former farmer who shifted to winegrowing and now owns
the award-winning Ata Rangi vineyard.
I realised that no one is doing anything here. DOC is in an overseeing role but
not doing anything for the future. I decided that I needed to look after the place.
- Clive Paton, chair of the Aorangi Restoration Trust
At around the same time, TBfree New Zealand was considering an aerial 1080
poisoning operation to target possums as part of a plan to eradicate bovine TB from 2.5
million-ha of the country. TB was still viable in infected wild animals in the Aorangis,
and the most recent aerial 1080 operation had been completed in 2009. Aerial 1080
poisoning will kill deer incidentally, is controversial for a variety of reasons, and is
opposed nationally by the New Zealand Deerstalkers’ Association. However, TBfree
New Zealand (then known as the Animal Health Board) had successfully tested deerrepellent baits in a 2005 aerial drop and used it again in the 2009 drop with the support
of local hunters. Neighbour Paul Cutfield was integral in organising hunters to support
the testing of deer-repellent bait trials in Recreational Hunting Areas across the country
in 2005:
We tested the integrity of deer repellent on 1080 baits in Aug 2006, 2009 and
again in Aug 2014. There were no significant deer losses found… win-win- win.
As a consequence local deer hunters have by and large, withdrawn their
objection to aerial 1080 operations with deer repellent. The hunters’
44
DOC manages about 178,000 ha nationwide as eight Recreational Hunting Areas that prohibit
commercial hunting. In New Zealand, commercial hunting refers to the culling of deer, pigs, and goats –
including helicopter culling – to protect native plants and animals. New Zealand has no game seasons,
licences, or bag limits for commercial or recreational hunters, but commercial hunters are banned from
the eight designated Recreational Hunting Areas and hunters are required to have a permit to hunt on
DOC land. (Fraser 2000)
24
antagonism about aerial 1080 has changed into a constructive and
collaborative one about wildlife management and biodiversity enhancement
- Paul Cutfield, board of Aorangi Restoration Trust
The win-win-win was that adding deer repellent left 1080 effective for possums, the
deer remained for hunters, and DOC and conservationists saw an increase in native
birds because of reduced possums and other pests.
In 2011, Clive Paton and other South Wairarapa residents, business people, hunters,
DOC and the Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) came together to launch
the Aorangi Restoration Trust. Leaders designed the Trust to be the community-led
organisation that could coordinate restoration in the region. Before the Trust, many
local landowners had been working at their own cost to enhance the bush, birds, and
native plants on their own properties that neighboured the Forest Park. However, the
Trust created a nexus for volunteers and agencies to gather for common purpose and
work across the boundaries of public and private land. The Trust is now viewed as the
local implementers and the board includes the active agencies (DOC, the Greater
Wellington Regional Council, TBfree New Zealand) as well as iwi, Forest and Bird,
and local leaders such as Clive Paton and Paul Cutfield.
The Trust began to organise volunteers and neighbouring landowners for a variety of
projects, beginning with “Project Penguin” which supports the remaining population of
little blue penguins by setting and monitoring traplines for ferrets, stoats, and feral cats
and providing nesting boxes. The nesting boxes were a fun volunteer project that
involved the local Lions Club and Kahutara School to cut assemble, decorate, and place
the boxes. Trust volunteers are also monitoring traplines along the perimeter of the
project area.
Students from Kahutara School assembling and getting ready to paint nesting
boxes for little blue penguins as part of “Project Penguin.” The boxes were precut by the Lions Club. [photo credit: Aorangi Restoration Trust]
Working in parallel to the Trust is the Project Aorangi Steering Committee. Through
the expertise of the Steering Committee, TBfree New Zealand implemented the first
year of a ten-year programme of aerial 1080 drops in August 2014. The 1080 operation
25
included the Forest Park as well as 10,000-ha of surrounding private lands that were
included because of the Trust’s successful efforts to engage neighbours. The agency
expertise and community support led TBfree New Zealand to carefully design the 1080
operation to go beyond standard possum control and include deer repellent and targeted
design to provide a “triple hit” on pests to reduce the numbers of possums, stoats, and
rats. This step was critical to support the biodiversity of the area and came at very little
additional cost.
Researchers from Victoria University of Wellington are monitoring the success of the
project, but early reports indicate that predator numbers have been knocked back and
Project partners are now eager to begin to reintroduce iconic species including kākā
(brown parrots), weka (woodhen), and kiwi. DOC staff have begun the process of
investigating the operational viability of translocating these species, but organisers hope
that at least some translocations could begin in 12 to 18 months.
Administering the Project
Project Aorangi is organised under a 2014 – 2017 Strategy and Action Plan that is
signed by the six members of the Steering Committee and includes a vision, goals, and
roles of each partner.
Project Aorangi—Haumanu kia Haumako restores the mauri of the Aorangi
Forest Park from the mountains to the sea, creating a world class ecological
and recreational park in the lower North Island that contributes to the
economic, social and cultural wellbeing of the Wairarapa and the wider
Wellington area.
- Vision of Project Aorangi
The associated goals are detailed under the following headings:
Goal 1 – Ecological: To restore the mauri (“vital essence”) of the Aorangi area by
restoring its natural ecosystems and the plants and animals that live there;
Goal 2 – Social and Cultural: To make the restoration and management of the
Aorangi area the concern of every person in South Wairarapa and the wider
Wellington region;
Goal 3 – Recreational and Economic: To increase the contribution that Aorangi
Forest Park makes to the economic prosperity of Wairarapa by further developing
its recreational and natural assets.
The steering committee comprises six groups with the following priorities and
activities:




Aorangi Restoration Trust: Organising like-minded people, mostly volunteers,
from a diversity of backgrounds who support the ecological health of the
area’s native forests, wetlands, reverting pastoral land and coast;
Ngāti Hinewaka: Restoring the ecological health of their 2,000 hectares and
recording and preserving wāhi tapu (Māori sacred sites) and cultural sites in
the region;
DOC: Managing the Aorangi Forest Park in collaboration with stakeholders;
Aorangi Recreational Hunters: Maintaining and improving the world class
freedom hunting experience in the Aorangi Forest Park while collaborating on
an outstanding ecological restoration project that also demonstrates a working
26


model of cost-efficient multi-species pest control (aerial 1080 with deer
repellent);
TBfree New Zealand/OSPRI: Controlling TB-infected wild animals, namely
possums, in the Aorangi area as part of the National Bovine TB Pest
Management Plan, which seeks to eradicate bovine TB from New Zealand.
Greater Wellington Regional Council: Implementing statutory responsibilities
for environmental management of private land including enhancing and
protecting regional biodiversity.
Other notable partners include:


Local farmers: All of the approximately 20 neighbouring sheep and beef
farmers are allowing aerial 1080 and associated trapping on their land, and a
few are assisting in trapline maintenance.
Researchers from Victoria University: Monitoring predator and bird activity in
the Forest Park and surrounding farms in 2014 to determine the populationlevel effect of the 1080 operation and the related response of native birds and
invertebrates.
The Steering Committee has met approximately two to three times each year, but will
begin meeting quarterly in 2015. Steering Committee meetings serve to keep partners
updated and to share technical expertise such as that which led to the eventual design
and implementation of the customised “triple hit” aerial 1080 operation.
The Aorangi Restoration Trust does much of its work through informal relationships in
the community on a face-to-face basis. Since the Trust relies on volunteer leadership, it
meets when needed but often makes an effort to invite experts to speak informally and
educate the community about an area of interest such as local archaeology or river
ecology. The meetings are generally well-received by those attending.
Accomplishments
Direct private sector benefits: The primary benefit to private landowners in the area will
be the eventual eradication of TB, which is highly infectious and can cause significant
financial damage to farmers if a herd becomes infected. However, it is also clear that a
major motivator for farmers is being part of the bigger picture to restore the resources
that make the area special.
A lot of people have spent time hunting or fishing in the area. Some may
participate just to keep an eye on things, but most are there because they care
about the bigger picture. The average guy wants to see the Forest Park looked
after, not just because of conservation but because if you take care of the
hinterlands, you’re also making things better downstream.
–Clive Paton
If you’re a farmer, by nature of the business it’s not just about the revenue. An
integral part of pastoral farming is about caring for the land and your
animals. As Kiwis, this is our land, our country, our birds, and we’d like more
of them. Surrounding landowners just want to play their part. Twenty years
ago it may have been different and we would just chop the bush down to have
more sheep, but things have changed and we want to look out for what’s left.
–Paul Cutfield
27
Direct conservation accomplishments: Research and monitoring has just begun, but it
is expected that the treatment of 30,000 ha and the buffer effects of surrounding
trapping will significantly enhance the populations of native birds and invertebrates in
the Forest Park. In addition, the Trust’s work to involve the community – such as having
local schoolchildren build penguin nesting boxes – fits DOC’s goal of involving more
people in conservation and instilling a conservation ethic in the next generation.
Extended benefits: TBfree New Zealand is highlighting Project Aorangi because it
shows that for very little additional cost, it can make a significant contribution to
biodiversity conservation over and above usual aerial 1080 operations. The typical
aerial 1080 operation would primarily target possums. However, the Project Aorangi
operation used bait and spread patterns that were more cost-effective without damaging
pest control efficacy. As TBfree New Zealand gets closer to their goal of eradicating
TB, these learnings will be critical so that their expertise and skill can be applied to new
goals, such as supporting biodiversity.
Lessons Learned
Community leadership was critical, but communities still need professional DOC
support and outside funding: It is clear that community collaboration accomplished
significantly more than would have occurred otherwise. Leaders like Clive Paton took
the initiative and built the community support that made this project successful.
DOC’s decision to act in response to the community in a support role helped build its
connection with the community and subsequent support. DOC’s support role was
appropriate, but the community will likely need additional support as the project
expands. As successful as the Trust has been, it is highly dependent on the time,
energy, and passion of a few key individuals and should have a transition plan.
Several individuals remarked that the Project would benefit from a dedicated DOC
project manager and people with management and planning skills. Another frequent
comment was that DOC seems to expect project funding to “materialise” from local
communities. However, the smaller number of people in rural communities are also
tapped for donations to other local causes such as schools and medical facilities.
Transition and financial planning will be critical to sustain community-driven
partnerships over the long-term.
Setting mutual goals at the beginning is critical: The founding vision and goals
provided a critical basis for all subsequent work. Especially with a diverse coalition, it
was important to have a signed document that placed equal value on elements that could
be controversial but are important to different parties such as iwi values, maintaining
red deer, and the use of aerial 1080. However, the founding document did lack
measurable goals and standard project management tools are not in place. Goals and a
project management framework should be revisited as the project moves forward.
Pragmatism, creative thinking, and flexibility are critical: Deer are an introduced
species and conservation purists may have balked at working with influential leaders
like Paul Cutfield and Aorangi Recreational Hunters. However, DOC staff showed
their willingness to be pragmatic and thus the deerstalkers became a critical voice of
support and energy for the entire project. While this non-traditional support
strengthens the project, it could eventually be a risk if the deerstalkers oppose possible
future deer culling to maintain native biodiversity.
28
DOC staff turnover and capacity is a limiting factor: These kinds of partnerships are
dependent on person-to-person relationships, and it is a challenge when DOC staff
shift and/or additional capacity is needed. The community has asked for DOC to play
more of an active management role, but DOC has not been able to accommodate the
request due to internal capacity issues. Several partners noted that they would prefer
to have the consistency and continuity of one person at DOC.
Partnerships can get more accomplished, but there will be a culture clash and DOC
should be more responsive when appropriate: This project was led by people who
self-describe themselves as a “bunch of independent, self-made rugged men who
don’t delegate well and are used to running their own show.” While effective in the
context of this project, it is very different from DOC’s deliberative and layered
processes that are required for native bird translocations and other conservation
actions. Local leaders express frustration that they had a great start with 2014’s 1080
poisoning, but now they have to wait for a complicated, expensive, and timeconsuming bureaucracy to catch-up. There is also resentment and rumours that DOC
is slow to respond because they are too focused on courting wealthy international
donors elsewhere (“DOC doesn’t have time for the Kiwis anymore.”). It is unclear
why these delays or misunderstandings have occurred, but it could be from unclear
expectations, a lack of project management, a lack of capacity, or related to the
ongoing restructuring. Regardless, these frustrations and rumours pose a risk to
DOC’s reputation, and it is critical to have DOC staff available that can explain and
facilitate the process as much as possible.
29
Brief Partnership Examples:
Nelson Forests and Mount Richmond Forest Park:
Working together to address wilding pines, South
Marlborough region and the Richmond Range45
The 166,000 ha Mount Richmond Forest Park (“Forest Park”) is mostly intact beech
forest, however 15 per cent of the park is grassland or open shrub and thus vulnerable
and subjected to wilding pine invasion.46 The source of the wildings is varied, and
some of it originates from conifers planted in the past by the Crown within the Forest
Park boundaries. 60 to 70 per cent of the Park is adjacent to commercial forest
plantations.
DOC and Nelson Forests Limited (an investor-owned company based in Nelson) are
working on an agreement to control existing wilding conifers and minimise the risk of
future invasions within and around Mount Richmond Forest Park. The process is
community-based and collaborative, and Nelson Forests is playing a leadership role and
is expected to contribute financially even though they are under no requirement to do
so. Nelson Forests is taking this action for “goodwill to control any continual spread of
wilding trees onto conservation lands from Nelson Forest-managed land.” DOC is now
seeking to expand this partnership to other forestry organisations to manage wilding
pines park-wide. Some early trials have already begun to control Pinus contorta on
high-priority land. While it is too early to assess the results of this partnership, it has a
lesson to share about the value of long-term face-to-face relationships and pragmatism.
Until recent years, the relationship between DOC and Nelson Forests was largely
adversarial because of disputes over road maintenance costs and access issues. Many
of these issues dated back to 1989 and the transfer of Crown land to private companies.
However, a few years ago individuals from Nelson Forests and DOC began to meet,
get to know one another, and share information. They developed a mutual
understanding that eventually led to a ten-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
in 2011. The MOU is designed to provide “equal benefits to both parties,” clarifies the
disputed issues, and sets agreements for regular meeting schedules, points-of-contact,
and other issues such as public statements. The relationship, pragmatism, and
willingness to work through issues in a mutually beneficial way is what led to the
current work on wilding pine control, which is expected to have significant and longlasting conservation benefits.
45
Information drawn from a variety of sources, including: Ledgard (2012), Memorandum of
Understanding (2011), and interviews with Martin Rodd and Al Check.
“Wilding pine” is the name given to non-native nuisance pine tree species when they spring up
uninvited. Wilding pines compete for forest space with native trees and plants, but are especially a
nuisance in areas where native forest does not occur, such as above the bushline, in mineral belts, and
tussock grasslands. The most common wilding pine species in New Zealand are Pinus radiata (Monterey
pine), Pinus contorta (lodgepole pine), and the Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga sp). [Wilding pines (n.d.)]
46
30
Ruamahanga Cut-Off and the Wairarapa Moana
Wetlands Restoration Project: Restoring wetlands on
private pasture in a 50-50 partnership with farmers, Lake
Wairarapa and Lake Onoke and surrounding wetlands,
Wairarapa plains47
The Wairarapa Moana (”sea of glistening water”) was one of the first areas settled in
New Zealand and has great cultural and economic importance to iwi dating back 800
years, particularly as an eel fishery. However, it is also an important farming region and
in the 1960s the Ruamahanga River was diverted and now bypasses Lake Wairarapa as
part of a flood protection project to enable 30,000 ha south of Martinborough to be
farmed more intensively. Today, much of the Wairarapa plains is dedicated to sheep,
beef, and dairy farming and Lake Wairarapa is one of New Zealand’s 10 most polluted
water bodies due to high levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, and algae.
The Wairarapa Moana Wetlands Restoration Project (“Wetlands Project”) includes the
southern catchment of the Ruamahanga River, Lakes Wairarapa and Onoke, and their
surrounding wetlands; this area collectively includes half of all the remaining wetlands
in the Wellington region and is the largest remaining wetland complex in the southern
North Island. DOC manages several wetland fragments along Lake Wairarapa, and the
local iwi are in Treaty of Waitangi settlement processes regarding ownership of the lake
bed. The heart of the Wetlands Project is the effort to restore cultural, ecological,
recreational, and natural character values to the lake and surrounding wetlands.
The Ruamahanga Cut-off project was an early success associated with the Wetlands
Project. The Cut-off is a 3 km section of riverbed that was separated from the main river
channel and is now a brackish section of riverbed running through farmland. Five years
ago, a local farmer named Ed Handisides purchased the property as an addition to his
existing family farm and was distressed that the water was largely stagnant, surrounded
by old, dying exotic trees, and unfenced, with stock freely accessing the water. Ed
approached DOC for help. In turn, DOC called the Greater Wellington Regional
Council (“Regional Council”). Handisides, DOC, and the Regional Council agreed on
an equal partnership to each contribute $5,000 to fence the Handisides property and
plant native species. The next year, neighbouring farmer Mike McCreary initiated a
similar project with DOC and the Regional Council.
In 2012, the Ministry for the Environment energised the Wetlands Project with a $1
million three-year grant from the Fresh Start for Fresh Water Clean-up Fund. The threeyear grant is administered by the Regional Council and co-funded by landowners, and
includes projects that focus on the quality of water leaving the farms and biodiversity,
such as:


Riparian plantings
Improvement of effluent systems
47
Information drawn from a variety of sources, including: Fresh Start for Fresh Water Clean-Up Fund
Application Form (2011), Fresh Start for Fresh Water Clean-Up Fund Annual Report 2013/2014 (2014),
Grant (2012), Pratt et al. (2015), and interviews with Ian Gunn and Chris Lester.
31







Optimisation of water use and irrigation
Pest and weed control
Modification of drainage
Surveys of fish and birds
Removal of exotic fish
Aerial application of herbicide on non-native plants.
Construction of on-farm wetlands
Landowners have a significant cost-share for projects on their land which varies from
50 to 25 per cent based on the significance of the project for off-farm conservation. In
2014, the on-farm restoration work was estimated at $1.1 million, with farmers
contributing $520,000. The Wetlands Project includes a Governance Group and
Management Team, and partner organisations include the Regional Council, DOC,
South Wairarapa District Council, Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa, Rangitāne o
Wairarapa, plus additional support from Dairy NZ, NIWA (a Crown Research Institute)
and other scientists and contractors. A key component of the Wetlands Project is
outreach and technology transfer with “field days” that are designed to inform farmers
and the community on technical issues related to the project. Field Day topics have
included soils and water, irrigation management, and biodiversity in drains.
The motivations of participating farmers for this project included:




Farmers need to be responsive to public concerns and keep their livestock out
of streams if they are going to keep their social licence to operate
A cleaned-up stream nice to look at
Supporting a healthy riparian environment is good stewardship
Farmers are anticipating limits from the National Policy Statement on
Freshwater and are interested in ways they can reduce their effluent now, by
methods of their choosing.
32
Living Water Programme: A partnership with Fonterra
and DOC to improve five sensitive water catchments in
dairying regions across the country48
Fonterra is a cooperative owned by its 10,500 member
farmers and is one of the leading dairy exporters in the
world. It is also New Zealand’s largest company. In 2011, senior leadership at
Fonterra and DOC began discussing a partnership that became a 10-year agreement,
initiated on 7 March 2013, called Living Water. Living Water is a long-term
commitment by Fonterra and DOC to protect and restore the health of five key
waterways in the country, with the programme vision that “A sustainable dairy
industry is part of healthy, functioning ecosystems that together enrich the lives of all
New Zealanders.” To meet this vision, Fonterra agreed to contribute $20 million
(average $2 million per year) over ten years to achieve biodiversity outcomes on a
catchment-wide scale that includes conservation actions on farms and on DOC
conservation land. Both parties are also contributing significant staff resources. A key
component of the programme is to work in partnership with local communities, dairy
farmers, iwi, and other stakeholders.
The cultures of the two organisations are very different, and much of the initial 18month start-up period has been spent learning to work with one another and to
understand the opportunities for on-the-ground projects. The two partners worked to
achieve a common programme vision, scope, and governance structure. An Operating
Agreement signed at the beginning of the partnership defines guiding principles, and
sets operational details such as protocols for decision-making, team meetings, financial
responsibilities, contract management, document management, and external
communication. Working groups include a Steering Committee, Technical Working
Group, Communications Working Group, National Programme Management Team,
and Regional Project teams.
The project has identified the following five Living Water catchments distributed across
the country:





Tīkapa Moana/Firth of Thames, Pūkorokoro/Miranda catchment
Waikato Peat Lakes, Lakes Areare, Ruatuna and Rotomānuka, Waikato
Kaipara Harbour, Hikurangi sub-catchment, Northland
Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere, Ararira/LII River catchment, Canterbury
Awarua-Waituna, Waituna catchment, Southland.
The initial years of the project have been largely a development phase where the
partners worked to begin long-term stakeholder engagement, particularly with Fonterra
farmers and iwi. The partners realised that this engagement and a significant amount of
48
Information drawn from a variety of sources, including: Our Progress: Making a Difference in Five
Key Catchments Annual Report March 2013-June 2014, National DOC/Fonterra Living Water
Operating Agreement, and interviews with Sean Goddard, Richard Suggate, and Cerasela Stancu.
33
baseline monitoring and evaluation were necessary before on-the-ground projects could
begin in earnest. However, in the first two years, the project initiated 16 start-up projects
in the five catchments, including feasibility studies, bathymetry mapping, hydrology
and habitat assessments, trials to enhance benefits from riparian plantings and fencing,
a demonstration project for wetland construction, and trials of passive filters for
nitrogen and phosphorus. One challenge of this phase has been a slow ramping-up of
DOC capacity to handle the additional workload.
The focus for the next phase of Living Water is to develop and implement three-year
strategic plans for each site and continue strong outreach to involve communities and
other stakeholders. The teams are also beginning to evaluate the governance structures
established at the beginning of the project to see if they need adjustment. A consistent
concern is that DOC capacity may not yet be at an appropriate level, and the regular
reorganising of the last few years has only exacerbated the problem. In addition,
Fonterra is working on providing the requisite regional staff support and on getting buyin from its farmer shareholders in the site catchments.
Living Waters has developed a list of lessons learned to share with other partnerships,
which parallel many of the findings above. Their lessons learned include:





Find a common purpose
Be realistic and expect that disagreements will happen
Create one team that meets regularly and gets to know one another as
individuals
Ensure clear documentation (i.e. articulate roles and responsibilities,
programme purpose)
Acknowledge complexities.
Even though it is still in the initial stages, this project has significant potential and could
be a game-changer for DOC, Fonterra, and New Zealand. The scale of Fonterra’s
impact across the country is large, so the learnings they gain from this partnership can
eventually be replicated to build a more sustainable dairying industry across the
country. In addition, DOC is positioned to learn more about corporate culture and
expectations, especially related to streamlining process and delegating staff, which
could improve DOC’s long-term operations and partnership opportunities.
34
Marlborough New Zealand Falcon Conservation
Programme (formerly Falcons for Grapes): An
unsuccessful attempt to partner with the winegrowing
industry to restore rare falcons to vineyards,
Marlborough region49
Falcons for Grapes was a promising idea that ended for valid reasons. Project
proponents wanted to partner with winegrowers to re-establish the rare New Zealand
falcon (karearea) into the highly modified environment of the Marlborough
winegrowing region. Beginning in 2004, project proponents – in consultation with
DOC – began releasing wild harvested and captive-reared falcon chicks on vineyards.
The goal was to restore a self-sustaining, breeding population of New Zealand falcons
to the region with the long-term support of the winegrowing industry. Vineyards
spend significant dollars every year on netting and other technical tools to defend their
vines from fruit-eating birds, and project proponents theorised that falcons could be an
effective and affordable pest bird management tool for vineyards. Research
undertaken as part of this project indicated that the falcons were effective for pest bird
control, and that it was possible to establish breeding falcons on vineyards. However,
the Falcons for Grapes project was ended for two reasons. First, monitoring
discovered that released birds were being electrocuted at an alarming rate on nearby
power transformers. Second, while individual vineyards were willing to host the birds,
the winegrowing industry was largely unwilling to contribute financially to the project
or to pay to modify their power systems and transformers.
49
Information drawn from a variety of sources, including: Kean (2009), Kross et al. (2011), Seaton et al.
(2011), and interviews with Laurence Barea and Phil Bradfield.
35
5
AN EXAMPLE FROM THE UNITED STATES
For context, and to illustrate organisational details and clear links to ecosystem services,
this chapter includes a detailed case study from the United States.
Forests to Faucets – Restoring forest
and watershed health to protect the
City and County of Denver’s
municipal water supplies and
infrastructure, Colorado, United
States50
Quick View
Area and Setting
5 at-risk catchments in the foothills and central mountains west of Denver,
Colorado. The land is predominantly National Forest used for recreation and
interspersed with a patchwork of private lands containing permanent
residences and access roads.
Timeframe
5-year agreement for 2009-2014; Discussions underway to expand into the
next 5 years.
Goal
Proactively improve the health and resiliency of 15,500-ha of forests in areas
critical for providing water to the City and County of Denver in 5 priority
catchments: Upper South Platte River, South Platte River Headwaters, St.
Vrain River, Colorado River Headwaters, and Blue River Watershed.
Partners
US Forest Service ($21.7 million USD)
Private Sector - Denver Water ($16.5 million USD)
Conservation
Benefits
18,600-ha of forest treated, including:
Private Sector
Benefits
Reduced risk to Denver Water’s collection system
Extended
Benefits
This partnership was the first of its kind and laid the groundwork for many
similar agreements in recent years with additional municipal water providers,
agencies, private foundations, non-for-profits, and businesses including Vail
Resorts, Miller Coors Brewing Company, and the Coca-Cola Company.




10,700 ha of hazardous fuels treatments;
798,000 trees planted
144 ha of wetlands and riparian areas restored
80 miles of recreational trails and roads restored, constructed, or
decommissioned;
 2,730 volunteers
50
Case study drawn from a variety of sources, including: Collection Agreement (2014), Collection
Agreement Financial Plan (2014), Denver Water Partnership (2015), Denver Water/US Forest Service
Partnership 5-Year Operating plan (2011-2015)–Version 5 (2014), From Forests to Faucets: US Forest
Service and Denver Water Watershed Management (2015), Graham (2003), Memorandum of
Understanding 10-MU-11020000-046 (2010), Western Forestry Leadership Coalition (2010), and
interview with Don Kennedy (9 May 2015).
36
The largest fire in Colorado state history began on 8 June 2002 and raged across more
than 56,000-ha in 20 days. At the time, news reports on the “Hayman Fire” focused on
the immediate devastation and costs – the death of one civilian and five firefighters,
$42 million USD in suppression costs, and $136 million USD in direct costs including
the destruction of 133 homes. However, the long-term costs became evident much later
when subsequent rainstorms washed ash, sediment, and other debris into the Denver
Board of Water Commissioners’ (“Denver Water”) infrastructure that supplies drinking
water to 1.3 million people, or one-fourth of the state’s population.
Denver Water’s infrastructure consists of a complicated network of more than ten
reservoirs and associated pipelines and tunnels that collect high-mountain snowmelt
from streams stretching over 1 million ha and delivers it to the City of Denver and
surrounding areas.51 Post-fire flooding and debris flowed down to one of the key choke
points in the network – the Strontia Springs Reservoir – and clogged it with 250,000
cubic yards of sediment, ash, and debris. Denver Water spent $26 million USD over the
next several years trying unsuccessfully to find engineering solutions to clean it out.
These unprecedented sediment flows were the result of extreme fire behaviour – a
catastrophic fire – driven by a combination of weather, topography, and fuel conditions
(i.e. dry and heavy burnable material such as trees and brush). The Hayman Fire burned
some areas with an intensity that even soil organic matter was incinerated, bedrock was
exposed, and the ground surface became glass-like and repelled water. The fuel
condition driving the fire was a nearly unbroken mass of trees with low crowns, shrubs,
and a deep layer of highly-flammable pine needles on the forest floor. Most of this land
was National Forest managed by the US Forest Service (USFS). Although this forest
type was historically adapted to fire, this level of fuel was exacerbated by a long history
of fire suppression and lack of proactive management such as prescribed burning.
In early conversations and reports, Denver Water blamed the USFS for their failure to
manage fuels and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire. However, eventually an
understanding developed between two forward-thinking leaders, Denver Water Chief
Chips Berry and USFS Rocky Mountain Regional Forester Rick Cables. Through this
relationship, Denver Water began to understand the very real budgetary and regulatory
constraints that limited the US Forest Service’s ability to proactively reduce the threat
of catastrophic wildfire.
Administering the Partnership
The understanding and learning that developed between Denver Water and the USFS
led to 18-months of negotiations and a 2010 Memorandum of Understanding52 (MOU)
between the two parties that outlined mutual benefit and interests and articulates each
party’s role. The MOU is supported by a US Government-required “Collection
Agreement” which provides the mechanism by which Denver Water reimburses the
USFS for on-the-ground work.
The goals and activities of the joint programme include:

51
Reduce wildfire risk through forest thinning, prescribed fire, and other forest
health treatments;
Collection System (2015)
52
10-MU-11020000-046, under the authority of the Cooperative Funds Act of June 30, 1914 (16 USC.
498 as amended by Pub.L. 104-127)
37


Restore areas that are currently recovering from past wildfires to reduce
sedimentation of the reservoirs through tree planting, riparian vegetation
improvements, and other rehabilitation activities; and
Minimise current erosion and sedimentation of reservoirs through the
decommissioning and improvement of roads, mine reclamation, stream
improvements, and other watershed restoration activities.
The parties developed and update annually a five-year operating plan and associated
financial plan that specifies treatment zones and planned activities within each of the
five priority watersheds. Each year, the parties meet to update any changes in treatment
zones, planned activities, projected area accomplishments, and estimated costs.
The USFS administers the on-the-ground projects and then bills Denver Water for
reimbursement. While forest treatments may be initiated in the agreed-upon fiscal year
(1 October to 30 September), it may take USFS two to three years to complete the work
and bill Denver Water for reimbursement. This delayed billing cycle originally
frustrated Denver Water, and is an example of how administrative differences between
organisations must be identified and overcome.


Denver Water’s funds total $16.5 million USD over five years and are used
only for on-the-ground work including unit layout, task order development,
contract administration, and treatment implementation.
The USFS contribution totals $21.7 million USD over five years and includes
in-kind staff time to oversee and administer all work done on the National
Forest, including conducting the planning and survey work needed to ensure
all activities meet applicable laws and regulations.
Designated USFS staff consult with their colleagues to develop the technical basis for
projects that meet the partnership’s goals and then propose them annually to Denver
Water for agreement and prioritisation. Denver Water largely defers to the expertise of
USFS to design appropriate projects, but plays a strong role in setting objectives and
prioritising projects. In addition, a collaborative group including Denver Water, local
USFS contacts, and a regional programme coordinator meet periodically during the year
to discuss issues and needs. The USFS attends a formal meeting of the Denver Board
of Water Commissioners to present results and address questions.
Accomplishments
Direct private sector benefits: Denver Water is highly satisfied with the project and has
already moved to expand it because they believe the project has reduced the risk of
catastrophic wildfire to their water supply and infrastructure in the Priority Watersheds.
Denver Water has so far chosen not to quantify the effect of the project as “costs
avoided” for their customers, and instead measures output in hectares and points to the
huge expense of trying to clean out the Strontia Springs Reservoir post-fire as an
example of why continuing this proactive forest management is critical.
Direct conservation accomplishments: The project surpassed its original goal and
treated approximately 18,600 ha to both restore lands burned in the Hayman Fire and
proactively reduce risk on other priority lands that could threaten water supplies.
Treatments included:


798,000 trees planted to stabilise soils and restore native forest;
10,700 ha treated to reduce hazardous fuels by mechanical thinning and some
prescribed burning;
38


Plantings and soil stabilisation to restore wetlands and streams;
80 miles of recreational trails restored, constructed, or decommissioned to
reduce runoff and/or enhance recreational opportunities.
Lessons Learned
Formalising agreements and setting mutual goals at the beginning is critical: The MOU
provided a critical founding document that became the basis for all subsequent work.
Therefore, those 18 months of negotiations paid off because individuals at all levels of
both organisations were included and satisfied. It also helped create a template for
subsequent longer-term investments by this partnership and others.
Managing the partnership at the appropriate regional or local level is critical: The
USFS has local Forest Offices that operate similar to DOC’s office regions, while the
Rocky Mountain Regional Office is akin to DOC’s National Office in Wellington. This
partnership established streamlined MOUs and Collection Agreements at the USFS
Rocky Mountain Region level for partners whose interests cross forest lines. However,
the Rocky Mountain Region left it to the local Forest Offices to provide active
involvement and decision space about the on-the-ground work being done in their local
area.
Creating multi-year project plans with flexibility for annual adjustments is critical: This
combination of long-term and annual planning has helped all partners incorporate
investments into both long-term and annual budgets.
Relationship-building and public recognition is critical: Just like any human
relationship, lasting partnerships cannot be taken for granted. Partners must be
recognised publically at key junctures. Gestures such as annual presentations by highlevel USFS leaders at the Denver Board of Water Commissioners goes a long way to
showing gratitude.
USFS staff capacity is a limiting factor: There is growing interest by partners to expand
and grow this model on USFS lands; however, the USFS does not have excess capacity
to manage the business side of the relationship or design more on-the-ground projects.
The agency is currently working to build staff capacity so that it can add new
partnerships with minimal impacts and maximum benefits.
Billing practices for the USFS are limited and do not easily match Denver Water’s
expectations: USFS is limited to using collection agreements as the primary financial
mechanism under federal law, and the partnership agreement called for USFS to be
reimbursed only after the work is done. However, the billings based on collection
agreements are considered confusing to interpret and are not project- or outcomespecific. In the first years of the partnership, USFS billings were unpredictable and
delayed. The partners compromised on a happy medium, so that the USFS now bills
annually and Denver Water pays the bill out of annual reserves rather than an annual
budget to account for unpredictability in when work may be completed. Many delays
can be beyond the USFS control, such as contracting delays, weather, and other
regulatory challenges of doing work on public lands. The USFS is currently working
through its internal administrative and legal processes to provide streamlined financial
agreements with outcome-based invoicing and reporting for existing and new partners.
The agency is also exploring options for partners to jointly fund projects on both public
and private land and to “bundle” funds from multiple partners together.
39
6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
OPPORTUNITIES RELATED TO PRIMARY INDUSTRY
PARTNERSHIPS
In summary, there is tremendous opportunity for DOC to continue and expand
partnerships with primary industry. The case studies and industry interviews show
that there is interest by industry and important conservation gains to be made from
doing so.
The case studies and industry interviews also reveal a set of common themes that
indicate important operational details for DOC and industry to consider and therefore
build even more effective win-win-win partnerships for the agency, industry, and the
general public.
New Zealand has regional variability that drives unique local partnerships. However,
it is my hope that the case studies and these recommendations can encourage crossregional learning while maintaining local flexibility and creativity.
In this final chapter, I organise the findings and recommendations for operational
details into the three “phases” of a partnership:
A. Prospect Phase: Proactive ideas for who, how, and what message to use when
considering new potential primary industry partnerships.
B. Start-Up Phase: Operational details to have in place up-front and before work
begins.
C. Implementation Phase: Critical components to have in place over the life of
the partnership.
I want to acknowledge that DOC is already implementing many of these strategies.
When that is the case, I re-state their importance merely to emphasise that they are
important and encourage DOC to continue on that course.
Many of my recommendations are designed for DOC since it is my host agency.
However, this chapter concludes with recommendations for primary industry because
partnerships require participation and commitment by both sides.
A. Prospect Phase
Targeting and looking for opportunities – be proactive and approach potential
partners with shared values
It appears that many of DOC’s current partnerships are initiated by partners, as opposed
to being a proactive decision by DOC. Proactive targeting would serve DOC well.
Based on the academic literature and the findings here, there are several key
characteristics that DOC should consider when looking for potential new business
partners. These characteristics include:
40



Organisations with executive or board leadership that cares passionately about
conservation. This matches the motivations from the case studies and
interviews and also matches the scientific literature that one of the strongest
drivers to overcome business barriers to sustainability were the values and
beliefs of senior management.
Organisations where there is an opportunity for a solid private sector and
public sector benefit, i.e. riparian plantings, pest control, etc.
Businesses that rely on international markets and third-party certification.
These characteristics build on shared values and finding a natural nexus between DOC
and a potential business partner. I am confident that DOC has some potential partners
in mind already, but I would like to offer some specific ideas:



New Maori-owned businesses related to Treaty of Waitangi settlements.
Forestry companies, especially those who share a common border with DOC
conservation land and who are large exporters that rely on certification from
the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).
ZESPRI, the international marketer for New Zealand kiwifruit.
Approaching a potential partner – consider using a “go-between” or messenger
and establishing a Business Leadership Council
One comment that I heard repeatedly was that DOC does not know how to communicate
with business. This could be addressed by hiring more people with business experience,
but that will take a long-term shift and organisational change. Therefore, I strongly
recommend that DOC consider relying on “go betweens” or people who can effectively
introduce DOC to their colleagues.
I recommend that DOC create a Business Leadership Council to advise the agency on
business partnerships and help approach potential new partners. The Business
Leadership Council should comprise CEO-level leaders who are trusted, already
familiar with DOC and partnerships, and who can speak authoritatively with their peers
at the CEO level about the business case for partnering with DOC. Several business
leaders emphasised the importance of having initial conversations at the CEO level,
both as CEO-to-CEO business peers and the highest level of DOC leadership.
DOC should initially rely on the peer-to-peer conversations by the Business Leadership
Council to communicate the initial reasons for why a partnership is beneficial (i.e. the
business case). These CEOs know how to discuss business benefits far better than DOC
ever could and can authoritatively explain why they choose to partner. DOC should
then follow-up based on the lead and advice of the Business Leadership Council, and
primarily explain the value of a partnership from a conservation perspective.
The Key Message – focus on conservation
DOC is the leading body of experts in the country on New Zealand’s biodiversity and
the threats to it. Given that, and the findings here that most partners are motivated by
conservation values, DOC should communicate based on what they know and focus on
the conservation benefits. After a business has had initial contact and shown interest
with a member of the Business Leadership Council, DOC should speak with passion
about the nation’s biodiversity, the threats to it, and what “keeps you up at night.”
Inspire possible partners by telling them the role they can play in preserving a key part
of New Zealand’s legacy for the future. DOC still needs to do its homework and ensure
41
they understand the business, but the primary message should be one that DOC can be
passionate about:
Engage their imagination with stories of success and get them to think about
how they might assist and what success might look for them. Have enough
understanding of their business when you walk in the door that the CEO will
say “good point.” Do your homework.
–Phil O’Reilly, Business NZ
I repeatedly heard a negative perception both inside and outside DOC that partnerships
are necessary to compensate for declines in DOC’s budget. However, the truth is that,
regardless of DOC’s budget, primary industry manages over a third of the country and
thus must be engaged in conservation if there is to be any hope of preserving New
Zealand’s unique biodiversity. DOC is not going to industry because it wants a handout. Preserving the nation’s biodiversity is not just the government’s job. All levels of
DOC must believe and act with conviction that partnerships are necessary for
biodiversity reasons, not financial reasons. This attitude-shift could help motivate and
impassion DOC staff and potential business partners.
Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services Messages: A secondary goal of my research
was to look at whether and how the quantified concepts of natural capital and ecosystem
services applied to decision-making by business about public-private sector
partnerships. Although I looked hard, it appears that economic calculations and
“bottom-line” numbers were not an important factor for any of the case studies or
industry interviews. Instead, partners were motivated by other factors such as personal
relationships, a shared appreciation and dedication to the land, and being a good
neighbour or corporate citizen.
The one exception was the US example of the US Forest Service and Denver Water.
However, even in that example, Denver Water specifically chose to avoid quantifying
the ecosystem services they received. Even though it appears that natural capital
messages are not effective when appealing to individual businesses, it is my hope that
the case studies – especially the US example – can still be used to help illustrate the
concepts of natural capital and ecosystem services.
Analyse DOC capacity before making commitments
There is a misperception that public-private partnerships can accomplish more with less
DOC staff and commitment. In fact, every example here was the opposite and actually
required more staff.
Nearly every case study and interview raised the concern that DOC staff capacity,
turnover, and/or the restructures were a barrier. I did not do a detailed analysis of staff
capacity, but the fact that the issue of capacity was raised consistently means that it is
a persistent perception by partners. Applying project management principles could
help, but there appears to be a systemic impression that DOC staff are asked to add new
partnership responsibilities on top of their existing workload.
Moving forward, I recommend that DOC incorporate a clear analysis before committing
to a partnership. This analysis should start with the assumption that new partnerships
take additional resources at the field, manager, and executive level. Based on that
assumption, DOC should carefully consider the conservation benefits of entering into a
42
new partnership, compared with the conservation losses that can occur if existing DOC
workloads are impacted. This analysis is important for two reasons: (1) it will help
evaluate whether a business partnership will provide a significant net gain for
conservation; and (2) it will help inform project management and staffing decisions
before the partnership gets underway, thereby leading to a smoother start-up and
implementation phase.
Adopt an open and pragmatic approach
One of the most important elements of this Prospect Phase is for all partners to listen
and learn from one another. The interviews revealed several consistent themes about
DOC that – if unaddressed – could undermine successful business partnerships because
they undermine the ability of business and DOC to listen and learn from one another:






DOC is only interested in their own conservation lands
DOC has a lot of people who just don’t like capitalism
DOC staff don’t spend enough time interacting with the community
DOC shows up with a plan already laid out based on their expertise, and
doesn’t give others an opportunity to learn or incorporate other ideas or needs
DOC mostly just says “no” whenever we suggest anything
DOC invites us to participate with them, but doesn’t ask for our input at an
early stage when it still matters.
In the Prospect Phase, DOC and potential partners should allow extra time to listen and
understand the other’s needs, motivations, and limitations. DOC may need to be
pragmatic in this phase. For example, Project Aorangi might never have moved forward
if DOC was not willing to be flexible about deer in the Forest Park. Similarly, in the
US example, both the US Forest Service and Denver Water were willing to adjust their
billing and payment schedules to allow for the needs of both sides. Listening and
building common ground can help build a real win-win-win project, as opposed to DOC
showing up with a project already in mind.
Be Cautious – protect your reputation
DOC’s reputation with the public is one of its greatest assets, and several interviewees
expressed concern that business partnerships could endanger it. This damage could
occur if DOC is seen as “greenwashing” a business or if conservation gains are not
obvious. Another concern is that DOC will be so busy working with wealthy individuals
or businesses that staff will not have time to work with “regular Kiwis.” Several
individuals expressed that with the limited philanthropic dollars available in a small
country like New Zealand, DOC is the “big dog” that could take dollars that would have
otherwise gone to community groups.
Be very thoughtful about competing with community groups. You can’t
compete and be a partner with the same agency. DOC needs to contribute as
well as take and if they start competing with their most ardent supporters they
will lose support.
–Professor Dame Anne Salmond, Ph.D.
2013 New Zealander of the Year
The University of Auckland
43
The only way to address this concern is to be aware of it and do a risk analysis in this
early Prospect Phase.
B. Start-up Phase
Be clear on common goals and operating procedures and implement strong
project management techniques from the beginning
It is critical that goals, timelines, and roles and responsibilities are clear from the very
beginning of a project. The projects profiled here indicate a wide variety of different
approaches, ranging from the very detailed and comprehensive project management
approach of “Living Waters” to the much simpler general strategy and action plan
adopted by “Project Aorangi.” The case studies indicate that there were several
instances where unclear expectations and project management led to tension later in the
project, such as perceived delays for bird reintroductions and community outreach at
Poutiri Ao ō Tāne and Project Aorangi. All partners need to improve by implementing
realistic project management techniques, including staffing, schedules, and
responsibilities. However, the level of complexity can still vary based on local
conditions. For example, the US Forest Service and Denver Water had a five-year
operating plan, but allowed for annual adjustments at the local level.
The impacts of staff turnover and DOC reorganisations were recurring issues raised for
the case studies and interviews and seemed to persist across the agency. Implementing
strong project management and recording techniques should help ease the transition
and maintain schedules and lines of responsibility even when there is significant staff
turnover.
The culture clash is inescapable, but both sides have a responsibility to
compromise
One of the most consistently cited challenges of public-private sector partnerships is
the clash that occurs between the business culture and government culture. The only
way to address this is to expect it, and thus allow more time at the beginning of the
partnership to sort out cultural differences. The case studies of Poutiri Ao ō Tāne and
Fonterra are good examples where frustration grew over time because cultural
expectations were not understood and sorted out early in the relationship.
Nearly every industry representative interviewed for this project expressed frustration
over the slow pace of government decision-making and implementation. In general,
industry expects to see a clear start and finish, with solid and executable goals,
accountability, budgets, and reporting periods. This is a valid concern, and DOC must
continue to streamline process and shorten the time and procedures necessary to get
things done. However, it is also critical that DOC take the opportunity at the beginning
of a project to educate industry about the differences between conservation work (i.e.
translocating a rare bird) and standard industrial production (i.e. planting a tree),
because unique unknown factors such as seasons, weather, ranges, and genetics can
play a role. Setting realistic expectations early can smooth the way for a better
partnership over time.
From my experience of interacting with DOC it seems our values are very well
aligned. However, as organisations we operate differently. We recognise that
44
at times DOC will move slower and has different objectives to a corporate
organisation. You can’t change that, but by investing significant time into the
development of the relationship up front it is possible to find areas of rich
shared value.
—James Gibson, Air New Zealand
C. Implementation Phase
Measurement and associated research is critical
Measurement is critical to track the progress and conservation value of a project. In the
case of public-private partnerships, it is even more critical because industry has a
reasonable expectation for measurable goals and accountability that can be incorporated
into project management. Business may not have the expertise to track natural resource
metrics, but DOC does and should rely on that expertise as a key benefit the agency can
bring to the partnership. For example, tracking associated with Falcons to Grapes
revealed that even though the falcons may have been meeting the business purpose of
protecting vines from pest birds, the conservation goal was failing due to falcon deaths
from electrocution; the project was subsequently suspended. Similarly, tracking the
effectiveness of specialised trapping methods at Poutiri Ao ō Tāne revealed that it was
still effective when done in a more cost-effective design, which eventually led to the
expansion of the project to Cape-to-City. The Fonterra partnership did an admirable job
of setting up baseline studies so that the effect of the multitude of projects could be
tracked over time.
As tempting as it is to get started and immediately begin implementing on-the-ground
projects, it is critical to ensure that the right people are involved from the beginning to
design a tracking and research programme that will meet the needs of both parties.
If you can publicise and measure the success of a project, business will rush
toward it.
- Phil O’Reilly, Business NZ
You can’t say thank you enough
The importance of mutual appreciation and recognition cannot be overstated. Both sides
of the partnership should never miss an opportunity to recognise their shared efforts
and the efforts of others in the community, such as iwi, other agencies, and other interest
groups. Recognition can include public ceremonies, but also includes smaller gestures
that can occur throughout the life of a project. For example, Denver Water made a
special point that they appreciated USFS leadership’s annual visit to their Board of
Directors. Several industry interviewees raised the issue that they had attended events
and no one ever recognised them, and occasionally even questioned why they were
there. As previously stated, partnerships are just like any other human relationship and
need to be nurtured over the long-term if they are to continue to grow and develop.
45
Recommendations for Primary Industry
Reasons industry should consider public-private partnerships
I was heartened by the opportunities and positive responses I heard in my industry
interviews, and I urge primary industry representatives to strongly consider getting
more actively involved in conservation, including considering public-private sector
partnerships. Some of the benefits that industry cited include:

An enhanced relationship with regulators. Getting to know DOC personnel on
a personal basis can be helpful over the long term, just like any other
community relationship.
It’s all about maintaining our relationships because we are here for
the long haul and want to be seen as good operators.
–Brett Gilmore, Pan Pac Forest Products

Play a role in maintaining New Zealand’s clean, green brand. Maintaining the
resources that drive New Zealand’s clean, green brand is a common interest
for both DOC and primary industry. Industry – especially companies that
operate internationally – need a social licence to operate. It is a false choice to
encourage either business or the environment, because there is ample evidence
(including in this report) that they can coexist. And as stated earlier, DOC is
not developing partnerships to compensate for budget cuts. Preserving the
nation’s biodiversity is not just the government’s job. Primary industry
manages a third of the country and thus must be engaged in conservation if
there is to be any hope of preserving New Zealand’s unique biodiversity.
New Zealand’s most important asset is the natural environment and with
that the benefits that our society and economy derive from it. Examples
include our outdoor lifestyles and the 100% Pure brand of many of our
products and services.”
–Mark Drury, Executive General Manager,
AECOM New Zealand53
It’s cool to have kiwi on your land!
Brett Gilmore, Pan Pac Forest Products

Third-party certification and corporate citizenship. Many of New Zealand’s
primary industries are very dependent on third-party certification. Over 50 per
cent of New Zealand’s 1.8 ha of plantation forests, especially those for the
international export market, are certified by the Forest Stewardship Council.54
Similarly, the New Zealand Winegrowers55 provide third-party certification
for virtually all of the country’s wine industry.
53
Business and Ecosystems: Identifying Risks and Opportunities (2015)
54
http://www.nzfoa.org.nz/plantation-forestry/certification/fsc-overview
55
http://www.nzwine.com/sustainability/sustainable-winegrowing-new-zealand/
46
There may be creative ways that industry could use a public-private
partnership to support some of the intangible parts of their certification
requirements. For example, forestry companies may be able to cite work with
wilding pine control or rare bird recovery as additional conservation actions
toward FSC certification.
Being able to demonstrate that you are a good corporate citizen or
good community player is an important part of certification and
auditing.
–David Rhodes, New Zealand Forest
Owners Association
Evaluate your business risks and opportunities related to ecosystem services
The scientific literature summarised in the introduction found that many small and
medium-sized businesses in New Zealand do not participate in sustainability practices
because they perceive that they have very little individual impact, or because they lack
the expertise or capability to address environmental issues. I heard similar themes in
many of my industry interviews.
New Zealand primary industry now has tools at its disposal to begin to address these
issues and have an impartial, scientific, and business approach to evaluating the risks
and opportunities that ecosystem services provide. The Sustainable Business Council
developed a new tool called the “Corporate Ecosystem Services Review.” This tool was
piloted by five New Zealand companies who presented their experiences at a workshop
in March 2015. I urge primary industry representatives to investigate this tool and
consider using it to understand their risks and opportunities.56
Industry is getting better at managing impacts, but we still need to think about
risks and opportunities of ecosystem services. The elephant in the room is our
dependency on ecosystem services, which leads to risks and opportunities. Your
business could be impacted by:





Community/social licence
Competition for land and inputs
Compliance
Climate change
Condition/ecosystem health, for example, if kiwi go extinct outside
reserves, if water quality goes down, how will that affect the 100% pure
brand?
–excerpts from Business and Ecosystems:
Identifying Risks and Opportunities, 26 March
2015, Sustainable Business Council, AECOM
Headquarters, Auckland, New Zealand57
56
http://www.sbc.org.nz/resources-and-tools/case-studies/science-and-innovation/esr
57
Recorded presentations online at http://www.sbc.org.nz/resources-and-tools/video-gallery/businessand-ecosystems-identifying-risks-and-opportunities
47
In Conclusion...
If there is one take-away message that applies to this entire report, it is that relationships
matter. Partnerships are like any other human relationship, and are based on people,
personal interactions and mutual respect.
What’s the value of my investment, my culture, your values? It’s not just about
money. Relationships are the key, and relationships with the tangata whenua
(“people of the land”) are absolute.
—Shayne Walker, Maungaharuru Tutira Inc, General Manager
When you set people down, they tend to have way more in common than not in
common. There will be differences, but technology is so helpful to help bridge
the sticking points.
—Paul Cutfield, Aorangi Restoration Trust
New Zealand has an opportunity to set a model for the world in how to build a
sustainable natural environment and economy, and it is my hope that these case studies
and insights can support even more public-private partnerships that are a win-win-win
for the agency, industry, and the general public.
48
BIBLIOGRAPHY
2015 Award Winners (12 June 2015), Randstad, retrieved 15 June 2015 from
http://www.randstad.co.nz/about-randstad/randstad-award/randstad-award-peryear/previous-winners-in-new-zealand/2015-nz-winners.
Animal Pests (n.d.). New Zealand Department of Conservation. Retrieved 5 June 2015
from: http://www.doc.govt.nz/nature/pests-and-threats/animal-pests/
Bansal, P. and Roth K. (2005). ‘Why Companies Go Green: a Model of Ecological
Responsiveness’, Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 43(4), p 717-736.
Business and Ecosystems: Identifying Risks and Opportunities, 26 March 2015,
Sustainable Business Council, AECOM Headquarters, Auckland, New Zealand:
recorded presentations online at http://www.sbc.org.nz/resources-and-tools/videogallery/business-and-ecosystems-identifying-risks-and-opportunities.
Conservation Partnerships kete [for partnerships staff] (n.d.). New Zealand
Department of Conservation. Internal document.
Cape to City: It’s In Our Nature (30 April 2015), Napier, New Zealand. Speakers event.
Collection Agreement between the City and County of Denver, Acting by and through
its Board of Water Commissioners and the USDA, Forest Service Rocky Mountain
Region. USDA Forest Service (15 December 2014). FS Agreement No 15-CO11020000-002 Cooperator Agreement No. 15752A.
Collection Agreement Financial Plans (Pike-San Isabel National Forests, Arapahoe
and Roosevelt National Forests, White River National Forest). USDA, Forest Service
(2014).
Collection System (n.d.), Denver Water. Retrieved 13 May 2015 from:
http://www.denverwater.org/SupplyPlanning/WaterSupply/CollectionSystem/
Collins, E., S. Lawrence, K.Pavlovich, and C. Ryan (2007) ‘Business networks and the
uptake of sustainability practices: the case of New Zealand’, Journal of Cleaner
Production, 15: 729-740.
Denver Water Partnership – A case study in Public-Private Partnership. U.S. Forest
Service Rocky Mountain Region (28 April 2015). Internal document. Contact Brian
Ferebee, Deputy Regional Forester.
Denver Water/U.S. Forest Service Partnership 5-Year Operating Plan (2011-2015) –
Version 5. (30 October 2014). This plan supports memorandum of Understanding 10MU-11020000-046 between the U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region and the
City and County of Denver, Board of Water Commissioners.
Department of Conservation Annual Report (2014), Wellington: Department of
Conservation. http://www.doc.govt.nz/annual-report-2014
Economic Costs of Pests to New Zealand (2008), MAF Biosecurity New Zealand
Technical paper No: 2009/31, Report prepared by Nimmo-Bell for MAF Biosecurity
New Zealand. Wellington: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.
Evaluating the use of 1080: Predators, poisons, and silent forests (June 2011).
Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand.
49
Farmers back a pioneering environmental restoration project (1 May 2015), Hawke’s
Bay Regional Council. Retrieved 7 May 2015 from http://www.hbrc.govt.nz/NewsEvents/Media-Releases/Pages/Farmers-back-Cape-to-City.aspx.
Fraser, K.W. (2000), ‘Status and conservation role of recreational hunting on
conservation land’, Science for Conservation 140. Published by Department of
Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand. Retrieved 1 June 2015 from:
http://www.conservation.govt.nz/Documents/science-and-technical/sfc140.pdf
From Forests to Faucets: U.S. Forest Service and Denver Water Watershed
Management Partnership (n.d.), Denver Water. Retrieved 13 May 2015 from:
http://www.denverwater.org/SupplyPlanning/WaterSupply/PartnershipUSFS/
Gabzdylova, B., J.F. Raffensperger, and P. Castka (2009) ‘Sustainability in the New
Zealand wine industry: drivers, stakeholders, and practices’, Journal of Cleaner
Production, 17: 992-998
Glen, A and R. Dickson. (2015), ‘Wide-Scale predator control for biodiversity in
Hawke’s Bay’, Kararehe Kino Issue 25
Graham, R T [Technical Editor] (2003), ‘Hayman Fire Case Study’, General Technical
Report RMRS-GTR-114, Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Research Station. 396 p.
Grant, Ian F. (ed.) (2012), Wairarapa Moana: The Lake and Its People. Fraser Books,
Masterton, New Zealand.
Greening New Zealand’s Growth: Report of the Green Growth Advisory Group
(December 2011), Green Growth Advisory Group Secretariat, Ministry of Economic
Development, Wellington, New Zealand.
Hartley, S. (2014), ‘Annual report to Tb Free New Zealand – December 2014:
Biodiversity responses to possum-control in Aorangi and Haurangi Forests”, Victoria
University of Wellington.
Hutching, Gerard, ‘New technology makes predator control easy’, NZFarmer.co.nz, 4
May 2015.
Innes, J, Kelly, D., Overton, J.M. and Gillies, C. (2010). ‘Predation and other factors
currently limiting New Zealand forest birds’. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 34: 86114.
Jones, C, and G. Norbury, A. Glen, and R. Dickson (2015), ‘Predator control benefits
native species but not rabbits’, Kararehe Kino Issue 25
Kang J., C. Liu and S. Kim (2013). ‘Environmentally sustainable textile and apparel
consumption: the role of consumer knowledge, perceived consumer effectiveness and
perceived personal relevance’, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Special
Issue: Consumer Issues in Retailing, Vol 37(4), pp. 442-452.
Kean, E.F. (2009). Effectiveness of New Zealand Falcon (Falco novaeseelandiae)
presence in Marlborough vineyards for bird control – objective measurement and
identification of obstacles to adoption by the industry. A dissertation at Lincoln
University.
Kross, S.M., J.M.Tylianakis and X.J.Nelson (2011). ‘Effects of introducing threatened
falcons into vineyards on abundance of passeriformes and bird damage to grapes’,
Conservation Biology, 26(1), pp. 142-149.
50
Land area (sq. km) (2014), World Bank. Retrieved 3 June 2015 from
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.TOTL.K2/countries?display=default
Ledgard, N.J. (2012) ‘The risk of wilding conifer spread into Mt. Richmond Forest
Park: A review of the present and future situation.’ Report prepared for Department of
Conservation (Nelson), Nelson Forests Ltd, Tasman Bay Forests Co Ltd (Hancock
Forest Management) and Tasman District Council.
Lozano, R. (2015) ‘A holistic perspective on Corporate Sustainability Drivers’,
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 22, 32-44.
Mainland islands (n.d.), New Zealand Department of Conservation. Retrieved 7 May
2015 from: http://www.doc.govt.nz/our-work/mainland-islands/
Mairi, J & M. Morad (2007). ‘Crying Over Spilt Milk: A Critical Assessment of the
Ecological Modernisation of New Zealand's Dairy Industry’, Society & Natural
Resources: An International Journal, 20:5, 469-478
Matthews, Philip., ‘The true cost of DOC budget cuts”, stuff.co.nz, 13 April 2013.
Memorandum of Understanding between the Director-General of Conservation and
Nelson Forests Limited, 6 September 2011.
Memorandum of Understanding between the City and County of Denver, Acting by and
through its Board of Water Commissioners and the USDA, Forest Service Rocky
Mountain Region. USDA, Forest Service (29 July 2010). FS Agreement No. 10-MU11020000-046.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003), United Nations Environment Programme.
Moller, H., C. J. MacLeod , J. Haggerty, C. Rosin , G. Blackwell , C. Perley , S.
Meadows, F. Weller and M. Gradwohl (2008). ‘Intensification of New Zealand
agriculture: Implications for biodiversity’, New Zealand Journal of Agricultural
Research, 51:3, 253-263.
Murdock, S.G. (21 March 2015). ‘Waikato cows,’ Digital cartoons published in the
Dominion Post, The Press, Timaru Herald and Waikato Times. Ref: DCDL-0030706.
Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. Retrieved 15 June from
http://natlib.govt.nz/records/35714444
National DOC/Fonterra Living Water Operating Agreement (2013).
New Zealand Economic and Financial Overview 2015 (24 March 2015), Wellington:
The Treasury. http://www.treasury.govt.nz/economy/overview/2015/nzefo-15.pdf
Nielsen Company (2014), Survey of New Zealanders. Report prepared for the
Department of Conservation, the Nielsen Company, Wellington, New Zealand.
http://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/about-doc/role/visitor-research/survey-of-newzealanders-2014.pdf
Our Progress – Making a Difference in Five Key Catchments: Annual Report March
2013-June2014 (2014). Fonterra and New Zealand Department of Conservation.
PHV Case Study #1: Gaining Altitude… DOC’s Great Walks and the Air New Zealand
Partnership (2015). New Zealand Department of Conservation. Internal document.
Wellington, New Zealand.
Poutiri Ao õ Tāne Impact Report: 2014 Large-scale collaborative restoration project,
(2014). New Zealand Department of Conservation. Ahuriri-Napier Office.
51
Poutiri Ao õ Tāne Project Learning Exercise. New Zealand Department of
Conservation (2014). Internal report, Wellington Office.
Poutiri Ao õ Tāne Report – Prepared for the Aotearoa Foundation (2014), Internal
report, New Zealand Department of Conservation.
Pratt, J-P, J. Sukias and T. Faulkner (2015). ‘On-Farm Drainage Remediation Projects
to Protect Wairarapa Moana’. In: Moving farm systems to improved attenuation. (Eds
L.D. Currie and L.L Burkitt). http://flrc.massey.ac.nz/publications.html. Occasional
Report No. 28. Fertiliser and Lime Research Centre, Massey University, Palmerston
North, New Zealand.
Project Aorangi – Haumanu kia Haumako pest control programme (May 2014). TBfree
New
Zealand.
Retrieved
25
May
2015
from:
http://www.tbfree.org.nz/Portals/0/3108%20OSPRI%20TBfree%20Aorangi%20PCP
%20HSP493%20v4.pdf.
Project Aorangi – Haumanu kia Haumako: Strategy and Action Plan 2014-2017.
Internal document.
Seaton, R., Fox, N.C., Wynn, C. And Olley, L. (2011). The Marlborough New Zealand
Falcon conservation programme: Lessons learnt and future directions. International
Wildlife Consultants report, UK.
Shrivastava P. And S. Hart (1995) ‘Creating sustainable corporations’, Business
Strategy and the Environment. 4(3): 154-165.
Stewart, Matt, ‘100% Pure Fantasy? Living up to our brand’, stuff.co.nz, 1 December
2012.
Stringleman H. and F. Scrimgeour. (2012) ‘Dairying and dairy products - Dairy
exports’, Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 13-Jul-12
URL: http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/dairying-and-dairy-products/page-11
Suchman, M.C. (1995) ‘Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches’.
Academy of Management Review, 20(3) 571-610.
Tao, Lin, ‘Kiwi brands among the most influential’, stuff.co.nz, 14 May 2015.
The Export Goal (5 March 2015), Ministry of Primary Industries. Retrieved 24 May
2015 from: http://www.mpi.govt.nz/about-mpi/our-strategy-2030/the-export-goal/
The New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy: Our Chance to Turn the Tide (February 2000).
Department of Conservation and Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, New
Zealand.
Tompkins, D.M. (2014). Potential of Feral Cat Control to Reduce the Incidence of
Toxoplasmosis on Sheep Farms – Report Addendum. Report prepared for Hawkes Bay
Regional Council by Landcare Research, Dunedin, New Zealand.
UK Natural Capital Committee. Natural Capital (n.d.), Retrieved 16 June 2015 from:
http://www.naturalcapitalcommittee.org/natural-capital.html
Vail Resorts – National Forest Foundation – a case study in Public-Private
Partnership. US Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region (28 April 2015). Internal
document. Contact Brian Ferebee, Deputy Regional Forester.
Western Forestry Leadership Coalition (2010), The True Cost of Wildfire in the Western
US Lakewood, Colorado.
52
Wilding pines (n.d.), Department of Conservation. Retrieved 16 June 2015 from
http://www.doc.govt.nz/nature/pests-and-threats/common-weeds/wilding-pines/
Windolph, S.E., D. Harms, and S. Schaltegger (2014) ‘Motivations for Corporate
Sustainability Management: Contrasting Survey Results and Implementation’.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 21, 271-285.
Interviews
Laurence Barea, DOC Hamilton Office, 28 May 2015
Tim Barnard, Scion, 9 March 2015
Leana Barribal, DOC National Office, 13 February 2015
Andrew Bignell, DOC National Office, 9 February 2015
Phil Bradfield, DOC Wairau Office, 17 April 2015
Nigel Bradly, consultant, 10 April 2015
Melissa Brignall-Theyer, DOC Napier Office, 13 April 2015
Warwick Bucknam, Kaimai Mamaku Campaign, 6 March 2015
David Carlton, DOC Napier Office, 30 April 2015
Al Check, DOC Nelson Office, 15 April 2015
Mark Christensen, AndersonLloyd (attorney), 26 March 2015
Spencer Clubb, DOC National Office, 10 February 2015
Nick Cradock-Henry, Landcare Research, 18 March 2015
Paul Cutfield, Aorangi Restoration Trust, Aorangi Recreational Hunters, 30 May
2015
Rod Dickson, Hawke's Bay Regional Council, 17 April 2015
Jay Eden, DOC National Office, 11 March 2015
Mike Edginton, DOC National Office, 29 January 2015
Geoff Ensor, DOC National Office, 19 March 2015
Shane Geange, DOC National Office, 24 February 2015
James Gibson, Air New Zealand, Head of Sustainability, 26 March 2015
Brett Gilmore, Pan Pac, 11 May 2015
Sean Goddard, Fonterra/DOC, 18 March 2015
Suzie Greenhalgh, Landcare Research, 25 March 2015
Ian Gunn, Wellington Regional Council, 25 May 2015
Ed Handisides, Wairarapa farmer, 28 May 2015
Duncan Harrison, Scion, 9 March 2015
Rod Hay, DOC Christchurch Office, 25 February 2015
David Hayes, DOC Wairau Office, 31 March 2015
53
Geoff Hicks, DOC National Office, 9 February 2015
Alistair Holmes, Foundation for Arable Research, 6 March 2015
Peter Huggins, DOC Tauranga Office, 5 March 2015
Ken Hughey, DOC National Office, 27 January 2015
Sarah Kafka, Aoteorea Foundation/Julian Robertson Foundation, 8 May 2015
Reg Kemper, DOC National Office, 11 March 2015
Don Kennedy, Denver Water, 9 May 2015
Felicity Lawrence, DOC National Office, 2 February 2015
Campbell Leckie, Hawke's Bay Regional Council, 17 April 2015
Chris Lester, DOC, Palmerston North National Office, 4/2/2015 and 25 May 2015
Huia Lloyd DOC Rotorua Office, 9 March 2015
Madeleine McCarroll, DOC National Office, 13 March 2015
Wendy McGowan, Rural Women NZ, National President, 5 March 2015
Doug McKenzie-Mohr, Expert and author on community-based social marketing, 9
March 2015
Simon Millar, Pure Advantage, CEO, 26 March 2015
Shirley Miller, PlusGroup Horticulture Limited (rep for NZ Kiwifruit Growers), 5
March 2015
Juan Monge, Scion, 9 March 2015
Alistair Mowat, Ministry of Primary Industries, former Director of Sustainability at
ZESPRI, 21 May 2015
Bernie Napp, Straterra, 26 March 2015
Penny Nelson, Sustainable Business Council, 27 February 2015
Shaun O'Connor, DOC National Office, 16 February 2015
Phil O'Reilly, Chief Executive, Business NZ, 13 April 2015
Susan-Jane Owen, DOC National Office, 10 February 2015
Clive Paton, Aorangi Forest Restoration Trust; Ata Rangi Vineyard, 29 May 2015
Joyce-Anne Raihania, DOC Napier Office, 30 April 2015
David Rhodes, New Zealand Forest Owners Association, 25 May 2015
Kit Richards, PF Olsen Limited, 17 March 2015
Adam Riding, DOC Palmerston North Office, 25 May 2015
Martin Rodd, DOC Nelson Office, 31 March 2015
Allan Ross, DOC National Office, 12 February 2015
Dame Anne Salmond, University of Auckland, 25 March 2015
Nicola Scott, DOC National Office, 27 January 2015
John Scrimgeour, Federated Farmers, 6 March 2015
54
Cerasela Stancu, Fonterra, Living Water Partnership Project Manager, 19 May 2015
Travis Stull, Trust Power Generation Division, 11 March 2015
Richard Suggate, DOC Christchurch Office, 13 Mar 2015
Aaron Taikato, DOC Whangarei Office, 1 April 2015
Bella Tait, DOC Rotorua Office, 9 March 2015
Chantelle Taylor, DOC National Office, 10 February 2015
Sandra Velarde, Scion, 9 March 2015
Shayne Walker, Maungaharuru Tangitu Inc, 30 April 2015
Annie Wheeler, DOC National Office, 23 February 2015
Graeme Young, Tenon Limited, 14 May 2015
55